DFD: 292 vs. 928, 525 vs. 242

[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

---

[0000292] "Make ground deformable like in TS (large explosions make actual craters,not just images of craters) vs. [0000928] two voxels in one unit

Fight 2

---

[0000525] Allow different types of stealth vs. [0000242] New plane logic

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, 12.07.2010.

[Black Shadow 750]

New plane logic seems kinda plain (sorry couldn't resist) and also kinda pointless. So Kill #242. Multiple cloaking types, on the other hand, is incredably useful, and stops the wierd logic of dogs seeing submarines, plus it de-glitchifies a whole tech branch. Look at MO, it has an entire side that uses stealth. Also, multiple types of stealth (AKA more than 2), is useful for more powerful high tech units. You might have a unit that can stealth but the stealth generator is poorly constructed and so up close is visible by any unit, where as its big brother is undetectable to all be specific detectors. So Support for #525.

#292 allows for more strategy (make craters in enemy base, they cant build there) so on just that bases I support it, plus I don't see a whole lot of use for #928.

Support: #525, #292
Kill: #242, #928

[Lt Albrecht]

#292 would be cool, especially if mods reinstate the pavement idea. Whereas 928 seems like a really bad way to do towed items like artillery or trailers (just swallow the objections and do them as 1 unit...)

#525 would be interesting, it'd allow (for example) one stealth for... spies, say. Another stealth for submarines, a third for vehicles, a fourth for aircraft and a fith used so that infatry can only be spotted within the sight= radius of players units. It ould potentially be used in lieu of Fog of war (especially if an option were given to not display the stealth effect on a per unit/stealth type basis) by stealthing all units in one type of stealth, giving all units the relevant sensorsight equal to their sight= and still allow other 'stealth' units on top that were harder to detect.

#242 on the other hand... Is #242, an annoying micromanagement intensive perversion of aircraft logic... The only thing that coul possibly of any real use in the issue is the suggestion "Well, what would make sense is having a "Fuel=" tag... ...[for] any unit (with corresponding PipScale=Fuel), which would run out by moving the unit.... ...add "UnitRefuel=yes" ... ...reload units that have run out of fuel, or have indeed all the settings of the Reload logic... ...as well " which deserves filing later as a seperate request.

[reaperrr]

New plane logic seems kinda plain (sorry couldn't resist) and also kinda pointless. So Kill #242. Multiple cloaking types, on the other hand, is incredably useful, and stops the wierd logic of dogs seeing submarines, plus it de-glitchifies a whole tech branch. Look at MO, it has an entire side that uses stealth. Also, multiple types of stealth (AKA more than 2), is useful for more powerful high tech units. You might have a unit that can stealth but the stealth generator is poorly constructed and so up close is visible by any unit, where as its big brother is undetectable to all be specific detectors. So Support for #525.

#292 allows for more strategy (make craters in enemy base, they cant build there) so on just that bases I support it, plus I don't see a whole lot of use for #928.

Support: #525, #292
Kill: #242, #928

Agreed on all accounts.

[Beowulf]

Kill #928. The premise is just ridiculous at best and #292 is a hell of a lot more useful. I won't use it myself, but deformable terrain is a nice idea for that eyecandy.

Kill #525. It seems like a lot of work with not enough benefit. Stealth units are really lame in YR and this would probably make it worse. As such, I support #242. Plane extension is a hell of a lot better than stealth.

Condensed version:
Kill #928 and #525.
Support #292 and #242.

[MRMIdAS]

keep [0000292] as I think [0000928] could be troublesome with longer trails, tight corners, and large groups of units pathfinding.

keep [0000525] for the reasons outlined in the request, it would also open a lot of other doors, e.g. a generals type fog of war, with units only viewable if they are in your sight radius.

[Blade]

Kill 928, train pathfinding already looks odd when the units can move unrestricted I imagine it being difficult to make this work right for player buildable stuff where the maps isn't set up for it. Say the front unit turns 180 on the spot, what is the following unit supposed to do, circle around it in an odd looking fashion?

Kill 242, sounds like a lot of boring micromanagement to me, there are actually RTS games where you have to taxi the plane to a launchpad building and then keep an eye on its fuel? I'd rather more stealth types though I'd keep it at a seperation of land and naval.

[Deformat]

Kill #928. Way too small issue.
Support #292 Good for eyecandy.

Support #525. It would fix some of the issues in-game.
Kill #242. Too much micromanagement.

[AlexB]

Fight 1
Deformable terrain should indeed offer more strategic possibilities, as long as it does lower the terrain only slightly and in a fair way (original TS artillery, anyone?). Westwoods "artillary" created craters right to the inner core... and it even did it while grinding performance. If this can be done right, this would be cool. Even though not only World War 2 TCs could gain from having a dragged artillery/turret, that would not be as much of a game changer.

Fight 2
I think Lt Albrecht's post sums it up just nicely. The proposed plane logic is just a bunch of micromanagement. It prevents the fast gameplay one expects from a C&C game. Fuel isn't the C&C way to balance units, it would just make them more complicated. Though non-VTOL planes should be done someday, this issue isn't the way to go. Stealth is a feature that might be useful for more modders and it could even fix the dog-sensors-submarine issue described. I'd rather not use numbers but names for the stealth types list instead, as adding entries can not wreak havoc, then. Otherwise, the proposal is quite decent.

[DCoder]

What Alex said, again.

[Renegade]

Results:

Fight 1:

---

Loser #928
Victor #292


Fight 2:

---

Loser #242
Victor #525