DFD: 428 vs. 925, 604 vs. 596

[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

---

[0000428] Experience from friendlies. vs. [0000925] Remap for Overly types

Fight 2

---

[0000604] Remappable/Faction Specific Parachutes vs. [0000596] Upgrade Upgrade

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: ~ 19:00, 08.07.2010.

[reaperrr]

Hm, tbh I think none of these appear particularly useful...
Anyway, Fight 1:
Support #428, kill #925. #925 is purely cosmetical and has no noteworthy effect on gameplay, besides, currently Overlays can't have an Owner, which would probably be necessary to make it work, and I believe it would be tricky to implement and not worth the hassle.
#428 could be used for some nice gameplay twists, so I vote in favor of this.

Fight 2:
Kill #604, support #596.
#604, uh... I thought parachutes ARE remapable? But even if not: A purely cosmetical, visual enhancement of limited value, there are too many more useful features waiting to be implemented, so kill this one.

#596 on the other hand can be used to enhance gameplay, so I'm in favor of it.

[MRMIdAS]

[0000428] would probably be more useful, although not everyone would use it, so keep this.
[0000596] needs keeping too, a deeper upgrade system is on the wishlist of most YR modders, this would help realise this.

[Beowulf]

Kill #428. This could potentially be a gameplay breaker instead of actually enhancing it. I was never in favor of earning experience for killing friendlies because it doesn't even make any real sense. You would never be rewarded for killing your own men and it should be no different in a game.

As such, I support #925. There need to be cosmetic changes in Ares too. This would allow for more interesting graphics, and that's a good thing. Improve the graphical environment some.

Kill #604. While I just argued for graphical enhancements, and this could be used to a great effect, it pales in comparison to its competitor. It's not nearly as useful.

I support #596. The possibilities with at least a similar system are nearly unlimited. Upgrades actually will enhance gameplay instead of making absolutely no sense at all.

[Lt Albrecht]

Support #925 and #596.
#925 allows beta-styled remap walls.
#428 breaks gameplay
#604 is pointless, may as well just set the parachute blank and add it to the infantry
#596 sounds interesting, allowing a straight improvement of certain characteristics.

[Bobingabout]

no to 428, yes to 925, have problems with that in my mod when the AI owns 4th side walls.
the other 2 are both good, so... no vote.

[Nighthawk]

Given that I'm the one that originally requested it, I'll have to say support #428, kill #925. People might be misunderstanding #428 to mean that every unit gains experience from killing friendlies, which is not the case - the original request was a tag for TechnoTypes, defaulting to no, so it wouldn't affect normal gameplay unless you specifically placed the tag on anything.

Using something like this in combination with new ArmorTypes and building-specific survivors/crew (not sure if this is implemented) could be used to develop a rudimentary POW system. i.e. destroy building; "capture" crew using, for example, a perma-control warhead; bring them back to base; POW camp building "captures" them, since it can only target their own ArmorType; building is "promoted" if it gets enough of them. Not entirely sure what that upgraded building would do yet, since I'm not entirely sure what tags have been put in thus far for veteran/elite units.

---

As for the second fight, I don't have any overarching opinion either way. However, #596 looks much more interesting (and has more possibilities) in my opinion, so I may as well support #596, kill #604.

[Blade]

Hmm, I lean toward a kill for 428, I don't really agree that getting experience from friendlies is fair and I like seeing beta and TS features reimplemented. That said, I don't agree that it is impossible to get benefits from killing your own troops, many countries have experimented on their armed forces volunteers in ways that have left them unfit for further military service. Normally these would be for bio or chemical weapon counter measures, but still, it happens.

Kill 604 because the paracutes already remap to the player colour and although it would be nice to have side specific ones with the insignia on or something, I don't see anyone jumping up to make them. It is also up against improvements to the upgrade system which is an old TS feature that suffers from not having been improved to allow new RA2 and YR features to be added to buildings through it. Imagine an upgradable structure that a side can only build one of or that is a tech building that has many upgrades to choose from but few upgrade slots. The player would have to make descisions on what buffs or abilities best complemented his game style.

[jimmy3421]

Oh..The fight is difficult to choose
So.....#925 #604 go to HELL
Because gameplay enhance is more useful than graphics enhance

[AlphaBravo]

Fight 1:
[0000428] Experience from friendlies. vs. [0000925] Remap for Overly types
Thinking of the possibilities, #925 is better then #428: #428 as it's given isn't so good - exp. from friendlies < C&C3-style assimilation. And #925 allows coloured walls - a nice improvement.

Fight 2
[0000604] Remappable/Faction Specific Parachutes vs. [0000596] Upgrade Upgrade
Besides the fact that #596 is my own issue, It has better potential - #604 is a pretty minimal cosmetic change, while #596 is a big, BIG, BIG gameplay advance.

[~Firefly~]

[428] i never noticed 925; 428 seems to be easy to implement (and maybe useful)
[579] this is a request concerning gameplay and the other one is just graphical stuff. Kill both if you want to

[Professor_Tesla]

I support #428 for the same reasons as Beowulf. I don't really think that gaining experience from killing friendlies makes much sense. I have no preference for either of the second two.

[Modder666]

While none of these issues are of that much of a deal for me, I'll put my two cents into this friendly debate.

Keep #925, kill #428
- I can't see much of a reason to gain experience from friendlies. This could lead to some serious twists and changes in gameplay, but in my shoes I don't see the logic behind it.

Kill both issues #604 and #596
- Both of these issues are fairly limited in application, the first being something that could easily be done through infantry SHPs and the second being incredibly limiting. If one wanted upgrades, you could code an invisible 0x0 building to trigger a changeup in prerequisites through Prerequisite.Negative tags. The only thing that the aforementioned system needs is an auto-placement tag, and you'd have an upgraded vehicle.

[AlphaBravo]

If one wanted upgrades, you could code an invisible 0x0 building to trigger a changeup in prerequisites through Prerequisite.Negative tags. The only thing that the aforementioned system needs is an auto-placement tag, and you'd have an upgraded vehicle.

One little problem: Prerequisite.Negative DOES NOT UPGRADE ALREADY EXISTING UNITS.

[Modder666]

And map script abuse, as well as Prerequisite.Negative abuse, would easily upgrade existing units. If it wasn't for the fact I've talked to DCoder before about such a feature, and understood the challenges behind implementation, I would be just as adamant as having something to do the work for me.

Btw, you don't need cruise control to explain what should be painstakingly obvious. *rolls eyes*