Nighthawk
31.07.2010, 19:15:36
For fight one:
I'm assuming for the sake of reason that #1149 is on about the old animated harvesters. While it does sound like good eye-candy, it would only work best on an SHP vehicle, and those aren't widely used. Even if it were doable through HVAs, I don't see many people getting much use out of it, as it would necessitate redoing all of the miners. However, such a feature might be handy for those doing total conversion mods.
As for the second issue, I'm not entirely sure whether it's talking about specific art for each number of remaining spawns, or just the ability for -WO voxels to use turrets. If it's the former, that could be useful for something like an aircraft carrier that has planes illustrated on its deck, or a dreadnought-equivalent that could be shown at each level of reloading. If it's the latter, the usage cases are somewhat more limited, I would assume.
Neither issue really gets my attention much, so I'm going to let my arguments stand incase they're useful, but declare support for neither.
For fight two:
Ah, now, both of these are much better, in my opinion. The falling speed control, while not a pivotal piece of gameplay mechanics, is a nice little piece of eye candy. You could use it to make heavier units fall quicker for that touch of realism. Or, if the Parachuted tag doesn't make it into Ares, it could be used on those horrible InfantryType parabomb workarounds to control their falling speed.
As for the second issue, the gattling logic within YR is a little constrained by this, and it would probably go a long way to remove that limit. Additionally, on the issue's bugtracker page, that's probably the first intelligent comment I've seen from an AnnoySumo - remove the limitation on gattling weapons to need a turret. It stops us using gattling weapons on vehicles that have fixed turrets drawn into the main voxel, or (to state the obvious) on vehicles that have no turret at all.
As such, though I do quite like the idea and the simplicity of the falling speed issue, I wouldn't prioritise it over removing silly engine limitations. Thus, my stance is support #1047, kill #1072.
I'm assuming for the sake of reason that #1149 is on about the old animated harvesters. While it does sound like good eye-candy, it would only work best on an SHP vehicle, and those aren't widely used. Even if it were doable through HVAs, I don't see many people getting much use out of it, as it would necessitate redoing all of the miners. However, such a feature might be handy for those doing total conversion mods.
As for the second issue, I'm not entirely sure whether it's talking about specific art for each number of remaining spawns, or just the ability for -WO voxels to use turrets. If it's the former, that could be useful for something like an aircraft carrier that has planes illustrated on its deck, or a dreadnought-equivalent that could be shown at each level of reloading. If it's the latter, the usage cases are somewhat more limited, I would assume.
Neither issue really gets my attention much, so I'm going to let my arguments stand incase they're useful, but declare support for neither.
For fight two:
Ah, now, both of these are much better, in my opinion. The falling speed control, while not a pivotal piece of gameplay mechanics, is a nice little piece of eye candy. You could use it to make heavier units fall quicker for that touch of realism. Or, if the Parachuted tag doesn't make it into Ares, it could be used on those horrible InfantryType parabomb workarounds to control their falling speed.
As for the second issue, the gattling logic within YR is a little constrained by this, and it would probably go a long way to remove that limit. Additionally, on the issue's bugtracker page, that's probably the first intelligent comment I've seen from an AnnoySumo - remove the limitation on gattling weapons to need a turret. It stops us using gattling weapons on vehicles that have fixed turrets drawn into the main voxel, or (to state the obvious) on vehicles that have no turret at all.
As such, though I do quite like the idea and the simplicity of the falling speed issue, I wouldn't prioritise it over removing silly engine limitations. Thus, my stance is support #1047, kill #1072.
Ares Project Manager.
![[Image: t3wbanner.png]](http://thirdwar.cncguild.net/images/t3wbanner.png)
![[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]](http://nighthawk.cncguild.net/things/cncgsigsb_sml.png)
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.