Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488
#19
Fight 1

As outlined last time, I love helicopter tilt, and I think it greatly improves their visual appearance.

That being said, helicopter tilt alone provides absolutely no gameplay value, while #1009 allows everything from bodyguards over patrolmen with guard dogs to Generals-style defense drones.

Kill: #741
Support: #1009

Fight 2

It's the same situation as last time: I love RA's Battleships and I want them in YR. But even if I weren't biased towards #510, #488 is just not worth implementing, imo - signified by the fact that I already tried to kill it last time, but was overruled.

The argument back then was that #488 is misunderstood. I say: Even with its actual intention, it's simply not going to be relevant, and, at best, encourages the implementation of problematic units. Why would we want to increase the number of SHP units in the game? SHPs suck to work with!

More importantly, however, #488 is simply not going to see much usage.
Creating an SHP unit is a shitload of work already - this would require 16 additional facings (8 directions, up and down each) to be generated per unit. And for a unit like a mech, these are going to be sequences, not still frames. So we're easily talking about at least a hundred additional frames of work per unit. Even if the artist works from 3D, and even if he can automate the camera positioning and facing-rendering, it's still going to be a shitload of additional work - per unit.

How likely is it that the broad majority of artists will switch away from the ease of voxels to SHP units because of an "advantage" that requires all this additional work?

Sure, there may be an artist or two for a conversion or two which prefer SHPs because they're supposedly prettier or whatever. But the majority of unit artists is simply not going to give a shit - for one, because it'll be too much work, and for two, because all this extra work would be unusable in the stock game, limiting their work to Ares or some other patch. (Not to mention they'd likely have to provide individual coding for each patch supporting this.)

#488 may be nice in theory, but in reality, it's just not going to see wide usage.

Kill: #488
Support: #510
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.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:40:27
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:34:47
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 16:42:35
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by mt. - 11.08.2010, 17:58:57
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by AlexB - 18.09.2010, 17:38:43
RE: DFD-R3: 741 vs. 1009, 510 vs. 488 - by Renegade - 02.10.2010, 23:52:23



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)