And here it is, my fellow bloodlusting crap-slayers! The Ultimate Smackdown!
For those of you late to the game, a while ago, I asked the community if you'd appreciate a chance to weed out the utterly crappy and unworthy issues out of the DFD pool, before proceeding to the next round.
This is that chance.
I already laid out the complete rules on Friday, so you should go back and read them before you start.
A few quick notes and reminders:
You are not supposed to vote out all issues you don't want implemented, you are supposed to vote out all issues you consider so utterly crappy they shouldn't even be considered for implementation.
Follow the post layout rules given, or your votes and argumentations will not be considered, mostly because the counting will happen automatically.
You can reply to people's argumentations for or against particular issues to try to support or disprove them, but you have to keep the format for supporting argumentations.
You can only post votes once. You can change your votes while the event is running, but only by editing your original voting post.
Issues voted out by the community will be closed as won't fix (as opposed to suspended in normal DFDs), since the community has decisively conveyed it doesn't want these issues considered for implementation at all.
Remember the developers will join the voting, and remember select decisions may be veto'd.
Be nice, be civil, be convincing, and, above all, have fun!
1044
1147 1044
This issue talks about altering the basic loading processes of the game. Simply, if it's too much work to implement, I don't see the point in implementing it for such a minor time-saving that a quick-exit option could just as easily accomplish too. Additionally, I don't know about anyone else, but minimising YR on newer versions of Windows (Vista and 7) for me causes system slowdowns and interface issues (and the slowdown's even worse on XP in my experience), thus I find it actually easier to just exit the game, make changes to my code and then restart.
1147
As I already said in the DFD thread, kill streaks can occasionally be used to an acceptable level in FPSs, but in RTS games where you can have nearly a hundred little infantry dotting about your screen at once, it just doesn't fit the gameplay. The veterancy system in the game is already there to reward units for "kill streaks" of sorts, and I think time would be better spent on improving its rewards rather than implementing a somewhat clumsy alternative.
Ares Project Manager.
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
08.08.2010, 21:31:56 (This post was last modified: 10.08.2010, 18:51:40 by reaperrr.)
292
326
333
345
376
640
916
947
972
978
1044
1075
1147
953
392
475
625
979
915 292
I know that there might be several people that hold a different opinion on this, but IMO the deformable terrain was one of the most crappy and annoying features of TS. There are too few height levels and the cells are too big to make it a worthwhile addition. Also: AFAIK RA2/YR terrain lacks some of the ramp tiles TS had, so it may not even work properly without them.
326
This just adds needless complexity to the grinder logic. Just not worth the time, IMO.
333
Only survived round 1 because its opponent was even more crappy.
345
I think it's crap, and it's apparently so uninteresting that nobody has bothered voting for or against it in the community ranking, which IMO is an indicator nobody really cares.
376
As darkstorm pointed out, this can be emulated already, furthermore #957 would be able to simulate some types of weather as well.
640
I voted for this myself in round 1 because I disliked its opponent, but in all honesty, I think it has too little value to justify any of the time spent on it.
916
In my opinion, some of the arguments Ren and Alex used against SubjectToUnits ("adding realism reduces fun", for example) apply here, too. Also, it was in C&C3 and I barely noticed it there, and on top of that iirc it mostly won because its round 1 opponent was even worse.
947
In my personal opinion, this shouldn't have been part of DFD. I mean afaik, it already IS programmed and implemented by pd, just not tested (because apparently nobody seems to care that much). In any case, I think DFD should be about deciding which features should be implemented, not which implemented features should be tested (& potentially fixed). It may actually work just fine already, so it really shouldn't be allowed to progress and potentially kill other issues (not that I think it really would, but anyway).
972
What darkstorm said. Just implementing something because it makes something that is already possible a little bit more easy? Nah.
978
I think a feature that has twice as many opponents as it has supporters in the com. ranking shouldn't be considered (unless BTG decides to program this himself).
1044
In light of some of his arguments, I kinda agree with nighthawk here.
1075
are observers in network games worth as much as features that help improve mods? IMO not even remotely.
1147
I think it's just crappy, has no community support (quite the contrary, in fact) and only won because the programmers liked SubjectTo- even less.
953
As several people mentioned already, we don't need another way to alter build speeds.
392
As I wrote in Round 1 already: Except for that one scenario in the description, I don't think it's very useful.
475
Another issue that only survived Round 1 because it was up against an even weaker opponent.
625
What Renegade said.
979
What Renegade said.
915
This is a mixed bag for me. The best SHPs will always look better than the best voxels, and 32 facings would help a lot to make them look even better.
But there are two problems with this request. First, as Renegade pointed out, very few mods would actually use it, because there aren't that many skilled SHP artists who make their SHPs by rendering from 3D models (and about half of these few work on TS mods, as far as I can tell).
The 2nd problem is that the request in its submitted form is just crap. The only sensible way to implement this would be a Facings= tag in art(md).ini that can be set to 8 or 32 and defaults to 8 (obviously). But forcing people to use a certain number of facings other than 8 is completely out of question.
I wouldn't mind if it was implemented one day in the form I suggested, but by DFD standards I think it shouldn't be considered right now.
336
This an argument in support of cameo text. As Renegade said, it makes translation easier, and you don't need to edit the cameo whenever the name of the unit changes. Also, from my experience depending on how you make your cameos text editing is actually amongst the more tedious aspects. Cameo text through strings like in TS would definitely save modders a bit of work, so while it might not be the most useful request taking part in the DFD, it's definitely not crappy enough to kill it here in the Smackdown, IMO. Those who don't like will still get enough chances to kill it in the next rounds.
979
947
392
333
475
345
953
915
625
326
1044
1147
Given that I have already written opinions on the large majority of these issues, I have opted to link to my individual judgement posts where appropriate.
As usual, I am ready to have my opinion changed...but you'll need more than the plain assertion that I'm wrong.
947
I know this is already half-coded, but I still think the concept is flawed, and if nobody can or wants to decipher it to fix it, there's no point keeping it around. Should The Dork Knight appear on the roofs of RenProj's code department again and fix it, alright, but until then, it's best to just drop this as broken.
345
I think this issue is just plain stupid. It circumvents the entire promotion system, and includes no usage case for when this would be necessary - the only thing I could come up with are combinations with veteran-conversion-features, which abuse the veteran system to feign some kind of evolution of the unit, and require these flags because the second or third stage is vastly more powerful than the previous one.
And that kind of thing should be its own system, if anything.
Ultimately, even if there were a proper usage case, I, frankly, don't believe this system would see much usage, and would be a waste of time to implement.
915
I consider this just plain superfluous.
It adds absolutely no advantage to the game, it can only be used if and only if SHP creators generate the additional facings, we have no data to properly extrapolate the missing facings from stock units, and those SHPers who want to maintain compatibility with stock YR or RP/NP will not use it.
In other words, it would only be useful to a select subset of SHPs in the first place (newly-generated SHPs coming from 3D-sources rather than copy-pasting, and only for use with Ares-mods), and then on top of that, you get the SHP penalty: Even from the minuscule number of cases where this could be used, only a fraction will actually happen, simply because there's a distinct lack of SHP authors in the community. And of those there are, only a subset generates their SHPs from 3D.
This feature will be largely unused. Implementing it is a waste of time.
625
I consider the requested feature rather useless, since the desired effect could easily be achieved through the custom armor system or other immunities.
326
Not only is this yet another proposal for yet another "more values on promotion" feature, more importantly, I consider it illogical - when selling units, the Grinder and Repair Depots sell the raw material of the units. The flesh and bones, the armor and engines. The experience that makes the unit superior, to the Grinder and Depot, is nothing but a particular arrangement of molecules to be broken down.
Why would you get more money for selling an old, used and abused human body, rather than a brand new, fresh, never-been-shot young body? Why would you get more for dented, duct-taped and shot scrap metal than for brand new, unscratched, perfectly processed armor plates?
It makes no sense.
1044
I think the effort/gain balance is just way too far on the effort side to warrant implemention on this one. All you'd gain is that you save a minute and a few clicks. On the flip side, we'll have to carefully rearrange the loading processes, painstakingly make sure everything is read and re-read correctly, and then, we'd still inevitably introduce bugs related to unforseen changes, load order flukes, etc., etc.
Not to mention that debugging issues for us would become infinitely harder, because we don't know if a crash was produced by the INIs the game loaded at start or by changes introduced later, simply because there could always be a bug leading to starting changes being thrown in when later changes were supposed to be read.
All in all, I think the little amount of time saved is not worth all the effort and all the potential bugs we'd be facing.
1147
I just don't think the effort of implementing this and the CPU time and memory used tracking this would be worth it.
Besides, streaks in FPSs serve a particular purpose: They reward skill. In C&C, you don't need any skills in order to gain your kills. When your Sniper kills 5 people in a row, what do you want an award for? Dropping him off on a cliff and forgetting about him? Skillfully waiting while the enemy Conscripts obliviously walk into range? Expertly looking on while your Sniper kills them off as fast as the ROF allows? Competently not stopping your Sniper in-between to not make him artificially slower?
Units in C&C target automatically and they fire as fast as their weapons allow them to.
Streaks happen because they computationally can happen, not because the unit or the player did anything special.
the only real argument I have with ren's list is 326
If an elite unit has more/better armour, guns, speed (engine), one would assume they'd be worth more, even as raw materials, even IF the extra armour is just bolted to the old stuff, even IF the new speed just comes from a better engine coolant, or the new weapon comes from more volatile ammo, the entire thing WILL be worth more as an elite unit.
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
1147 326
Note: this is an arguement for. If an elite unit has more/better armour, guns, speed (engine), one would assume they'd be worth more, even as raw materials, even IF the extra armour is just bolted to the old stuff, even IF the new speed just comes from a better engine coolant, or the new weapon comes from more volatile ammo, the entire thing WILL be worth more as an elite unit. On the other hand, if it's been through a war long enough to become veteran/elite it's going to be battered up and therefore, not worth as much any more. So some'd logically be less salvageable and some more so.
326
While those are fair objections, the interesting question is: What difference does it make in the game?
We can argue a long time over the imaginary value of imaginary tank armor after imaginary battles.
You say it has better armor, I say the interior, electrics and joints are aged and battered, so it balances out.
You say it's quicker because of a better engine, I say it could be quicker because they took out parts that the elite crew simply doesn't need, making it lighter (and thus quicker).
You say it has better guns, I say the better guns are out of the same metal as the old ones, and the Grinder doesn't care what the metal once did.
It's a futile debate, since we have no real values to base it on.
As said: The interesting question is: What difference does it make in the game?
How often does the average player really go on and sell promoted units in the first place?
And, assuming a non-n00bish use of these flags, what difference would they make?
Let's assume I have an Elite APOC. Let's assume I added 25% soylent value for each level.
Then you have...
Okay. Now I sell that thing. I make 1000 credits profit for all the times I battered and beat that tank.
Hooray.
Now what damn difference does it make?
Sure, there'll be someone to argue "What if he sells it because he's low on money?". I can just as well argue "What if he's selling it because he mind controlled it and needs the Yuri?". In most games I played, resources were less of an issue by the time people were rolling around with Elite Apocalypse Tanks. (A little reminder: It's VeteranRatio=3.0 by default, so that tank alone killed 5250 credits worth of units by then...the equivalent of 7 Grizzlies and then some. You don't kill 7 Grizzlies alone just like that. That game has been going for a while, and if resources were an issue, they would have been an issue for a while.)
My point is: Even if one were willing to follow an argumentation where age, wear, constant battering etc. lead to no loss in value and everything tacked on only adds value - it simply wouldn't matter in the average game. Sure, there will be fringe cases where every credit counts, but on average? What difference does it make if you get 1093 credits for your Elite Grizzly instead of 700?
Oh, you can buy one additional GI! Hooray! Clearly the rookie GI and the rookie Grizzly you have now are totally going to win the war the Elite Grizzly couldn't win!
Seriously, people. Get real. As long as you use this in a sane manner, it makes no difference, and if you're the kind of modder who'd do VeteranSoylent=10000, then you might just as well n00b up Soylent and be done with it.
In practice, in the average game, independent from all imaginary justifications, the effects of these flags would be negligible, and thus a waste of time to implement.
09.08.2010, 19:42:26 (This post was last modified: 09.08.2010, 19:43:49 by Beowulf.)
285
336
526
947
333
725
953
915
217
376
978
488
916
1075
1044
1158
1147 336
Feels just so very meh to be honest. Feels like it takes away from the potential to be creative with cameo styles since not everyone wants text on the damn things. I have seen incredible styles without any text at all so this just seems very pointless. If you want different text on your cameos, break out an image editor and do it yourself!
526
Never really liked this one. The idea seems kinda pointless and doesn't seem to really offer anything in the way of enhancing either gameplay or game balance. I know, up to the modder to balance, but still. The idea itself isn't even that great. Besides, it's just Temporal logic with a different shell.
404
This isn't against it, but there does need to be a little bit of clarification. The AI will deploy things other than construction yards such as an infantry, which it already does or something like a mobile war factory, which can be easily scripted. It's only units such as the Siege Chopper that the AI cannot correctly handle. Still though, would be nice to have the AI deploy the damn things.
947
Biggest waste of an issue to be perfectly honest. This would require way too much work for not nearly enough benefit. Even that doesn't account for the lack of a proper map editor to handle a new theater, much less load the fucking thing. I don't see hardly anybody taking advantage of a new theater anyway. If you want a new one, ditch lunar or extend an existing one. Really, really don't see the point at all.
725
I don't understand this request at all. What is the use case for this? I just don't see how this could possibly be effective since the Chronosphere is a two-click superweapon by design.
915
This is entirely superficial and a complete nightmare for any SHP without the additional facings. I seriously don't see anyone taking time out to 'fix' ALL of the Westwood SHPs to include additional facings, not to mention those popular SHPs as well. This is just a bad idea from the outset.
217
I do not see a good use case for this particular request, outside of Boris. The idea seems kinda silly and I know this is YR and all, but does it need to have more ridiculous crap? Consider exactly what this request implies: superweapons... on a TANK or SOLDIER? How does that even make sense?
376
Why? This can already be done! MadHQ did it already!
1075
The AI is already allowed in a LAN game and since most LAN games take place in the same house, Observer is fairly moot. If you're not in the same place, use XWIS. That's why it's there.
378
1009
1044
1147 378
With Ares, I want more control over unit strengths and balances, not less. Random damage adds a factor which cannot be controlled by the modder. I don't want my Apocalypse tanks to be taken down by a very lucky GI. While some people might like the random factor, it would make it obscenely difficult to play a fair game.
1009
Slave logic expansions... I'm sure I read that somewhere else.
1044
As massively timesaving as this would be, It would be an awful amount of work to implement, because some parts of the inis are required before you start a game. In light of this, I believe that it would be better to consider some ways to speed up loading times, making it quicker to repetitively start skirmishes for tests.
1147
Surely many elements of a streak bonus which are not present in the existing veterancy system would be implemented by the much more worthy morale/bravery/panic request - which fits much more sanely into a C&C, to my eyes.
336
The fact that it's possible to make cameos without text, or to do this and that in a graphics editor is irrelevant for that request. As it has been pointed out, a graphics-independent cameo text would be very helpful for internationalization as well as ease of development.
Besides, in all honesty, I find the argumentation "if you want different text on your cameo, all you have to do is get the cameo source, open program 1 (graphics editor), edit the text, export the image file, open program 2 (mixer) and convert the image to SHP" shows pretty well what the issue is - when the choice is between changing one string where the name and/or the data of the unit is stored anyway, or running through two additional programs and doing graphics editing work just to fix a typo, how exactly is the latter considered the easier, more sensible option?
If you want fancy eye candy, that's fine. This issue wouldn't remove cameos.
But some people just want to edit the damn text and do it easily - and not make another cameo for every damn object in the game for each language because WW stupidly decided to remove this functionality.
526
The characterization of this as "Temporal logic with a different shell" is just wrong. It's more like invulnerable stealth. Watch more Star Trek.
(And before you see this as proof that it's superfluous, the existing stealth doesn't give extra attributes depending on the state of stealth - though that would be one way to implement this.)
725
Clearly you read neither the issue nor my judgement for that DFD.
That issue is misleadingly written. It's not so much about the Chronosphere as it is about a transportation superweapon for occupants/passengers of the building.
Similar to the Chronosphere, yes, hence why it is mentioned, but it doesn't propose to change the actual Chronosphere.
As said, I admit the issue is written misleadingly, but your interpretation of the request is wrong.
217
As I have pointed out in my judgement, this request makes sense as soon as you stop judging it by the crappy example given in the request, and start thinking in terms of magic or spawning. A Dark Wizard could give you a "conjure dragon" super weapon, for example. Yes, it can be faked, but so can many other things in the game, and we have requests for all of those, too.
If you think SWs on people are silly or unnecessary, fine.
But reasonable usage cases exist for them.
376
For the second time: This claim would be much more credible if you backed it up.
As long as I see no proof it can be done, it's your word against the request, and no memory of ever seeing this on a map.
Plus, even if it can be done, there'd be the question of how efficient the fake would be compared to a "native" solution.
@Orac:
378
You are supposed to show why that issue shouldn't even be considered for implementation; so far, you've only expressed a personal dislike, and even acknowledged others might find this issue interesting.
The fact that you, personally, don't need random damage doesn't mean we shouldn't even consider implementing it for others.
1009
Reading helps. The other issue is linked as related on the issue.
While you try to imply it's a duplicate, it's not, so if you can't show why this shouldn't be considered for implementation beyond that, this vote isn't any better than the previous one.
Just to make this clear once more: We are trying to filter out those issues which are so crappy we shouldn't even think about implementing them. You are not supposed to vote out all issues you dislike, no matter the quality of the request.
10.08.2010, 10:02:32 (This post was last modified: 10.08.2010, 21:01:02 by Beowulf.)
@ Ren: 376
I'm not sure which map it was done on, but there was no faking of anything. It was waypoints, celltags and a lot of triggers. The map runs fine as I recall from all who have played it, and I'm certain several others have replicated the behavior or used the same triggers that he did. If I had the map, I would definitely post it up but I have no idea when MadHQ did it, but I am certain that he did it.
[EDIT] Finally found the map and I was incorrect about the original author - it was Gamemate who first did the effect. However, that point is inconsequential.
Attached RAR has the rain animation, snow animation and a test map. Never used it myself so it might need a modified rules/art file. But just checking the map should confirm what I said.
[RE-EDIT] RAR seems to have been damaged upon upload. Seems like Firefox is corrupting my uploads again.
10.08.2010, 17:48:50 (This post was last modified: 10.08.2010, 21:11:42 by mt..)
217
360
376
625
724
947
972
991
1147
217
I don't see this as something which will be used all to much. Because the super weapons won't be stackable (that was suspended! oh no!), this would only be the slightest bit reasonable with hero units. And adding this new feature for the possibility of use on one or two hero units is just not worth enough imo.
360
Well, I'm not 100% sure about this. Why not use 302 for such a thing. Or is that irrelevant? "Bullet Effect" really doesn't seem too different from using a straight-firing weapon with a long bullet-like image.
376
You can do this already on maps. Therefore the only "new" part about this is letting these effects slow down units. That just seems too minor to bother implementing for weather alone.
625
Do this by Verses, do this by some Secondary, do this by some other workaround. Don't do this by adding new logic for something easily emulated in stock.
724
Minor, graphical, use whatever the stock is using to sort its cameos?
947
-We have a lot of theaters already.
-You can just edit the existing ones to free up a theatre.
-Map editor would need changing.
972
Already can be done with clones. Few bugs associated, the only one I can think of is closing not working type-select.
991
Edit maps and free one up. You're going to be editing maps anyways to ADD this new ore in right? Not to mention few mods even touch the ore/gems, aside from perhaps an image replace.
1147
No.
-This is a reward to constant micromanagement of a unit.
-FPS and RPG style... Not RTS
@FEN
The rain.shp is broken in that RAR mind reuploading?
217
292
475
526
916
1009
1075
1147
1158 217
Even though reasons can be thought up where this might make sense, it is a border case.
292
Nice way to destroy buildable space and have some real craters, on the other side, heavy lags and artilleries shooting a hole through the earth.
526
Very little gain as this is another special request that rather suits a mod than serving general purpose.
916
Even if the calculations behind this are quite easily done in theory, in simulation games this is ok, but in C&C it's out of place.
1009
Should be dropped in favor of the full blown spawn feature. No need to code follow/defend/attack logic twice. The IsBodyguardControlled tag is the only interesting new thing on it.
1147
Streak is only here because its opponent in DFD was even crappier.
1158
Might be a real load of work for another border case. Yeah, it would look cool, but at the cost of issues that might be used by more prople.
10.08.2010, 18:09:00 (This post was last modified: 10.08.2010, 18:19:47 by Lt Albrecht.)
[0000333] Barrel=
[0000392] DestroyAnim / Explosion / DebrisAnims Override
[0000488] Cliff SHP sequences request
[0001147] Streak
-
333 Because it's just useless and lazy, use an empty voxel as the xxxtur and you get the same effect with turretrotates=no
392 because it's silly and the only use is a hack for cellspread temporal imitation.
488 because I know of nobody who is going to practically remake an infantry unit just so it can go across cliffs.
1147 because it's a bad mechanic in FPS (debatably) and would only get worse in an RTS where it's a shoddy second veteran system with no indication...
Quote:360
Well, I'm not 100% sure about this. Why not use 302 for such a thing. Or is that irrelevant? "Bullet Effect" really doesn't seem too different from using a straight-firing weapon with a long bullet-like image
Because it's only an effect. A straight-firing projectile would hit things on its way (in fact I've started taking advantage of this...) , whereas with an effect the damage works the same as always but we get the nice visual stimulus of little flying tracers.
If the straight-flight projectiles are used they'd be almost useless against air targets as the damned AI can't do deflection shooting (it never had to before, although if you look at the target markers when you select a moving tank to attack using another tank, the fact the red dot at the end of the line is forward of it - and shifts according to speed - suggests it does with tank shells, or at least considers the idea of maybe trying it). Regardless re-coding the AI's targeting so it can hit things with styraight flying projectiles is a pain in the posterior compared to a shiny little bullet effect.
Renegade
Nighthawk
![[Image: t3wbanner.png]](http://thirdwar.cncguild.net/images/t3wbanner.png)
![[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]](http://nighthawk.cncguild.net/things/cncgsigsb_sml.png)
Darkstorm
![[Image: darkstormsmall.png]](http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6215/darkstormsmall.png)
![[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]](http://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/MRMIdAS2k.jpg)
AlexB