DFD-R2: 1149 vs. 1114, 1072 vs. 1047

[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

---

[0001149] About Miners vs. [0001114] Spawn-dependent turret

Fight 2

---

[0001072] Airdrop Feature vs. [0001047] Fix Gatling Logic

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.

[MRMIdAS]

I go with [0001114] on the basis that if [0001149] wants what I think (a RA1 style, animated miner, using the scoop when it collects etc), that's either a lot of Voxel/HVA buggery, or an SHP miner, IF the miner is SHP, then it'd need a sequence on a vehicle, and an extra "mining" entry to go with it. too much work IMO.

[0001047] Gattling Logic needs to be unit dependant, with fallback to default values should new ones not be found, Gattling tank parsed first, then if theres no value set, the first lot of gattling values in the Rulesmd.

[RandomNutjob]

I back 1114 and 1072 simply because 1149 hasn't been explained and imo will not have much support [at least when compared to opponent]

As for 1072 to me it's logical a vehicle would fall faster though I imagine as is a minor issue 1047 will take it, is fine - sure could squeeze it in down the line right

[reaperrr]

Fight 1:
Support #1114
Kill #1149
I'm not 100% sure what #1149 is actually requesting. A TD/RA1-like harv unload anim is already possible with SHPs, so I guess he wants something that makes voxels animate in a similiar way.
Whatever, kill it, it seems to be something trivial and unimportant either way, #1114 definitely sounds more useful in any case.

Fight 2:
Support: #1047
Kill: #1072
I agree that equal falling speeds for all paradropped objects is a bit unrealistic, but IMO it's too trivial of a request.
Removing some limitations of the Gattling logic sounds a bit more useful (though it's not exactly a must-have either, at least IMO).

[Beowulf]

Don't really care much about the first fight. 1149 carries its own share of issues and 1114 at least seems somewhat usable. Still don't care much for either though.

Kill #1072. #1047 is a lot better since gattling logic is pretty sweet. Don't see the point in falling speeds being changed individually.

[Nighthawk]

For fight one:
I'm assuming for the sake of reason that #1149 is on about the old animated harvesters. While it does sound like good eye-candy, it would only work best on an SHP vehicle, and those aren't widely used. Even if it were doable through HVAs, I don't see many people getting much use out of it, as it would necessitate redoing all of the miners. However, such a feature might be handy for those doing total conversion mods.

As for the second issue, I'm not entirely sure whether it's talking about specific art for each number of remaining spawns, or just the ability for -WO voxels to use turrets. If it's the former, that could be useful for something like an aircraft carrier that has planes illustrated on its deck, or a dreadnought-equivalent that could be shown at each level of reloading. If it's the latter, the usage cases are somewhat more limited, I would assume.

Neither issue really gets my attention much, so I'm going to let my arguments stand incase they're useful, but declare support for neither.


For fight two:
Ah, now, both of these are much better, in my opinion. The falling speed control, while not a pivotal piece of gameplay mechanics, is a nice little piece of eye candy. You could use it to make heavier units fall quicker for that touch of realism. Or, if the Parachuted tag doesn't make it into Ares, it could be used on those horrible InfantryType parabomb workarounds to control their falling speed.

As for the second issue, the gattling logic within YR is a little constrained by this, and it would probably go a long way to remove that limit. Additionally, on the issue's bugtracker page, that's probably the first intelligent comment I've seen from an AnnoySumo - remove the limitation on gattling weapons to need a turret. It stops us using gattling weapons on vehicles that have fixed turrets drawn into the main voxel, or (to state the obvious) on vehicles that have no turret at all.

As such, though I do quite like the idea and the simplicity of the falling speed issue, I wouldn't prioritise it over removing silly engine limitations. Thus, my stance is support #1047, kill #1072.

[Augusto]

For fight 2 im support a fix for Gattling Logic, witch are very useful to create cool new ini issues, but the gattling logic problems with the turrets, infantry and close range weapons are important limit...
Im know how to fix the problem with the turret but with infantry no have solutions from rulesmd.ini...

[Renegade]

Administrative Notice:

Given that there have been no new comments for almost three days, it is assumed this fight is over; we will proceed to judgement.

[Renegade]

Fight 1

---

As kind-of visible from the first comment on issue #1149, I share the confusion about what that request actually wants.
Even assuming the interpretations suggested are correct, the impact on gameplay would be negligible, and, as several of you have pointed out, making use of the feature would require a certain amount of work, making it even less likely that it'd be used widely.

While spawn-dependent turrets aren't exactly an immense addition to the game, at least it's a narrow request for a reasonable graphical feature which actually has an informational purpose, rather than just plain looking good.

Kill: #1149
Support: #1114

Fight 2

---

#1072 would be kinda nice, but, as several of you pointed out, it wouldn't do much more, really. Objects would fall at different speeds, and that's it.
It's a nice, reasonable, narrowly-defined request, but extending the gattling logic would be much more useful to the modding community at large.

Kill: #1072
Support: #1047

[AlexB]

Fight 1
The comments on the harverster issue say Parmesan cheese on a blue Sunday morning. That's today! I vote for the spawn turrets.

Fight 2
I think the falling speed is a tivial issue. It is needed to call a game perfectly customisable. It has little impact on anything. If the army drops heavy stuff somewhere they make sure it doesn't hit the ground undamped. Soldier's feet heal, a car won't recover. The car should fall slower than the paratrooper.

Imagine you're dropping a humvee in the desert. Your mission is to scout the area and to find and eliminate an enemy sniper who ambushed your engineers trying to capture an oil derrick. And right after the humvee hits the ground you have to call the auto club to tow it.

The gattling logic is limited and that's sad. It should get extended and have its limits removed. There shouldn't be any assumptions about AA and AG.

[Renegade]

Result:

As above.