DFD: 329 vs. 339, 350 vs. 615

[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, the adjustment and the schedule.

Fight 1

---

[0000329] "Cannot target this" function for Custom Cursors vs. [0000339] turret turning

Fight 2

---

[0000350] Make waypoints save. vs. [0000615] The ability to set a refinery's docking cell(s)

After the fight is over, 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".
This use of simple terminology should be part of a larger argumentation - if this is all your post consists of, it will be ignored. We are interested in argumentations and details to consider, not votes.

A decision will be made either way, 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!

These fights are largely automatically generated - if an issue turns out to be unfit for combat, it will be disqualified and the opponent will go into the queue.

[Beowulf]

Kill #339. I don't feel it's all the great of a concept, nor do I feel that it provides any real substance for changing gameplay or weapons. #329 though... it would allow for some unused cursors to be employed or could be extended for multitudes of things dealing with mouse cursors. I give that my support instead.

I'll support #350. Not because #615 is bad, but because #350 seems a tiny bit more useful. Never really seen the problem with hardcoded docking offsets.

[Black Shadow 750]

Never really seen the problem with hardcoded docking offsets.

I got one, what if you want to change the shape of the refinery?

[Beowulf]

Tough shit apparently.

[MRMIdAS]

[0000329] would aid with custom cursors, something a lot of modders want.

[0000615] is a good idea, modders want unusual refinery shapes, and I daresay it'll be easier to code than the warfactory clusterfuck.

[Renegade]

Administrative Notice:

Given that there have been no new posts in the past three days, it is assumed this discussion is finished; we will proceed to consider the arguments.

[Renegade]

Heh. That was a short discussion.
I'll follow the consensus of the discussion.

Fight 1

---

Kill: #339
Support: #329

Fight 2

---

Given that midas voted against his own issue, I'll follow his vote on that one. (That, and given that savegames don't work in general, #350 would have been a "way in the future, if we're lucky" kind of issue anyway.)

Kill: #350
Support: #615

[AlexB]

Fight 1
Tanks turning because they can't fire in a direction... Great. Shunting and switching tanks would be so more realistic. But it wouldn't change the game.

Cursors would be sooo much nicer. Having mirage disguise cursors, spy power outage cursors, remove parasite cursors and everything would just be great. Users will see the cursors every time, they can't escape them.

Fight 2
Save games... brrr.

The refinery docking offsets are feasible considered save games don't work at all. It's a smaller and decent issue.

[Renegade]

As such, the result is as outlined above.