DFD: 285 vs. 626, 288 vs. 957

[Renegade]

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 and the schedule.

Fight 1

---

[0000285] Unit de-evolution upon death vs. [0000626] Airstrike Logic Expansion

Fight 2

---

[0000288] UnitArmory Logic vs. [0000957] custom storms

By the end of the 48 hour period, 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".
A decision will be made either way, so 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!

End: ~ 18:15, 05.07.2010.

[reaperrr]

Fight 1: The first fight so far where both features sound useful.
But when it comes down to it, I must say
Kill #285, support #626. Airstrikes would become FAR more flexible and useful if the modder had control over what kind of targets the airstrike can acquire. For example, I'd really like to see airstrikes that can target units and bridges. #285 sounds nice too, it could be used to simulate a Mech that loses an arm (together with its weapon), but I slightly prefer #626.
Still, the feature that loses this fight will hopefully be a prime candidate for 'un-suspending' once the situation allows it.

Fight 2: This is easier to me.
Kill #288, support #957. #288 is something that simply doesn't sound very useful to me. #957 on the other hand could not only be used to create custom storms, but also to simulate other superweapons (let's say a space bombardment or something like that).

[MRMIdAS]

again, i have my reasons for wanting [0000285] to survive, so i'm going with that.
[0000288] seems the more useful of the 2 to me, although thats not saying much.

[¥R M0dd€r]

I vote for [0000285] Unit de-evolution upon death, becuse it give us many new oppourtunities, really it does!

[Beowulf]

Kick #285. #626 is far more useful than devolving units.

Kill #288. I'd rather have #957; storms are FAR more useful than a new armory.

[Speeder]

I can't say which feature in first fight would be more useful for modders so I won't comment on this one.

As for the second fight, I support #957 because I'd like to see more custom superweapons available in future releases and custom lightning storm is something that can be used for lots of superweapon ideas, especially with logics available now. UnitArmory seems to be too much of a trivial/bonus feature. Also, armory logic for infantry needs enhancements first..

[jimmy3421]

Support #626 #957
#626 ,so useful that can't say any reason against it.
Next #288 ,I don't know the detail of that So I support another.

[Orac]

I support 626 and 957.

(Although I would like to see 285 at some point too)

[Blade]

kill #285, really just down to personal preference here. Kill #957, customisation of superweapons is IIRC already scheduled which is what most people seem concerned with for this feature so on that matter its a duplicate IMO. Other than that it seems to be requesting weather effects which can be emulated mostly with animations and map scripting.

[Lt Albrecht]

I'd like 626, the other three can all die.

[Marshall]

Support 626.

[Drogan]

I don't know about 285 or 288,

But 626 could be quite useful.
957 is fine too.

[AlexB]

Fight 1
I haven't heard many arguments against de-evolution and so many for airstrikes. This is hard... 285 is a good idea and it somehow goes hand in hand with unit change on promotion. It is very versatile: Mechs losing parts, Cyborg death, degradation into weaker units, (with small changes even resurrecting large units like CC3's Avatars/Tripods/Juggernauts [destroyed units may go neutral]). Air strikes are cool, but using a desingator to target infantry sounds weird. Support for classic A10 air strikes would be cool, as well as the circling plane targeting everything in its range, but this should rather be a super weapon. My vote is on #285.

Fight 2
This one is easier. Even though the proposed logic will be a lot of work and has found no supporters in the tracker so far (same with the armory in this respect), I vote for #957 as it has more fans here.

(Side note: It's hard to evaluate meta-arguments like the argument "there are arguments". How does one rate them?)

[Renegade]

Fight 1

---

Since there was no actual argumentation in support of issue #285, and I agree that liberated Airstrikes will add more strategic options in combat & modding, my vote is...
Kill #285
Support #626

Fight 2

---

I believe there was some confusion regarding issue #957 - nowhere in the request does it say anything about super weapons. The request is about custom weather phenomena, like the random ion storms in Tiberian Sun. As such, Blade's argumentation that custom super weapons are already scheduled is invalid, as is Speeder's SW-based one in support.

However, I liked TS's random ion storms, and given that nobody even bothered to come up with an argumentation in support of #288, I'm gonna go with my personal opinion: Random storms are more interesting and different than yet another way to promote units, so my vote is...
Kill #288
Support #957


One final note, since some people apparently still don't get it: This is not a vote. The number of supporters, while it will be taken into account, is not the basis of decision here. We are looking for argumentations making a good case for the death or survival of particular issues.
In other words: Any post that consists of nothing but a support/kill statement is completely pointless and will be ignored.
If we wanted to make this based on numbers, I could just add a poll each time and kill the ones with the least votes.
But, in fact, this very discussion shows why we're not doing that: Despite the fact that #957's request has nothing to do with super weapons, multiple people tried to decide over its fate based on super weapons. If we made it a pure vote, misguided judgement like that could decide the fate of an issue based on false pretenses.

We don't want good issues to die just because the voters can't be arsed to read beyond the summary, or only skim the description.

So, one more time, in bold:
We are looking for argumentations for or against issues. If your post doesn't provide one, it will be ignored.

If you need a differently-phrased explanation, have a look at WP:JUSTAVOTE.

[DCoder]

Fight 1

---

I'll have to go with #285. It seems more useful to me (Alex's use cases ftw).

Fight 2

---

This is easy. Storms were fun in TS, and although I don't yet see how exactly to INI code them, I'd love to see them back. In favour of #957. I feel improving Armory logic in general should be higher priority than adding this.