Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927
#1
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

[0000943] Place land on water support. vs. [0000689] The ability for a vehicle/infantry/aircraft to deploy into any of the latter.

Fight 2

[0000518] Waypoint Mode Aircrafts vs. [0000927] Extended Building Upgrade Support

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! Dual M16

End: ~ 19:00, 13.07.2010.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
#2
#927 can go die in a pit, IIRC the "upgrade upgrade" issue makes it redundant. So waypoints for aircraft it is. Also it allows aircraft to be "on gaurd" and fly in patrol loops like in real life. Thus support #518

#689 Gives a lot of variety and new possibilities (grounded plane/stealth tank -> more manuverable but exposed aircraft), and also some cool easter eggs (MacGyver -> Apocalypse, Ironman Tongue). Where as #943 gives only one specific line of possibilities (I can now make water into land).

Support: #518, #689
Kill: #927, #943
#3
#689 was more of what I was arguing for in the deploy issue. This is what I really wanted and would allow the aforementioned 'transformer' units.
#943 is lame and would only be useful in such a "wait, what the hell?" raising scenario as to be useless to any decent mod.

#518 would silence all requests from me for aircraft to be able to guard area as I could just set them up on a patrol loop and save everyone time.

#927 (as previously stated) is redundant in the face of "upgrade upgrade" from the earlier DFD
#4
Between #943 and #689, I don't really care. But I have to lean towards #689 since it could allow for some interesting combinations like vehicle->aircraft for some EotRS-style vehicles. That's a lot more useful than a 'land bridge,' which I don't think many people would even bother with.

Between #518 and #927, it's a tough call. Each of them very useful, but I have to support #927. Upgrades are so severely limited that using them is almost counterproductive at times. Extending the support would increase flexibility a lot more than just way point aircraft.
I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
#5
[0000518] as "upgrade upgrade" covers the other issue.

[0000689] as it can be used for some of the "rising sun" units from RA3.
[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
#6
Quote:Upgrades are so severely limited that using them is almost counterproductive at times. Extending the support would increase flexibility a lot more than just way point aircraft.
A DFD winner from a previous round already covers this.
#7
Support 927 and 689.
#8
Support [0000689]
Java student.
#9
Quote:927
927 is redundant. A duplicate feature is already in the next round

Whereas 518 is unique and would add more strategy to the game (set aircraft to go *round* the wall of SAMs without having to micromanage them, set up fighter planes to patrol and defend, set up ground attack planes to do the same), basically allowing more of the range of options open to ground/naval units to be used with aircraft. Whereas 927, as previously stated about 4 times is redundant because "Upgrade Upgrade" does the same thing.
#10
Definitely support #689 over #943. While 943 would be kind of cool and would be a fun tactical addition, it would probably be rarely used and it's far less important than *types being able to transform into other *types. As said before, this would allow great amounts of possibility in creating EotRS units in a RA3 TC mod, and futuristic mods will gobble this feature up. Buildable land bridges will most likely end up changing the outcomes of less games than transforming units will.

And as said at least 5 times above 927 is redundant, so support 518. Aircraft being able to follow waypoints and patrol loops would be incredible, however I am not sure how much improvement on general aircraft movement logic would be necessary. For instance, one problem that would need tackling is the aircrafts' complete inability to acquire its own targets.

Nonetheless, it's still more useful than a redundant issue, and it's an issue I support all the way.
#11
Quote:one problem that would need tackling is the aircrafts' complete inability to acquire its own targets.
They can do it, they're just really coy about doing it. It takes a lucky set of circumstances and then they'll do it until out of ammo (someone talked about it being hit and miss with the "airstrike" spyplane mission, with some tags and a bit of luck it sometimes did it). This really needs fixing regardless, but especially in this context.
#12
This DFD is rife with failure to consider all aspects of an issue.

Fight 1

You all agree on 943's supposed lack of usefulness - "only one specific line of possibilities (I can now make water into land)", "useless to any decent mod", "a 'land bridge,' which I don't think many people would even bother with", "it would probably be rarely used".

Well, I happen to have tried my best to make this work back in the day, to no avail. Why? Because I'm apparently far more creative than you guys.
  • Base expansion, for example off-shore power farms, or additional factories to speed up building without clogging up the base
  • Factories with piers next to harbors, to start a naval invasion right from the water, at best close to the enemy's bay
  • Backup HQ, out of reach of tanks and infantry
  • Full-blown off-shore secondary bases
  • Naval defense platforms & parameters, extending the base defenses (e.g. a complete circle of prisms around the base, including on water - imagine that with Marsh's prism forwarding!)
  • Bridges
  • Blockades (Just as I can build land to cross water, I can build land to divide water - try sending your pesky subs if the water way is gone)
  • In extension of all of the above, complex pier/harbor setups
  • And ultimately, if this was implemented as "build any terrain type anywhere", you could go the other way round and build canals, allowing you to relocate your fleet to a different sea, and catching your opponent by surprise

But hey, clearly vastly expanding the usefulness of water in the game and allowing the player to controlledly use it to his advantage offers no strategic enhancement of the game at all, and all of that is just a glorified version of "let's build bridges" that no one will ever use.
Mmmhmm.

Instead, let's tackle the exciting freshness of yet another issue wanting changes to the deploy system!
'cause we clearly don't see the word "deploy" often enough on the tracker!
Next week: Issue 1215: Enable DeployToFart=yes.

And before there's bitching and moaning about cloned Naval=yes buildings: Those are not the same, they are not fully functional, and their usefulness is limited without bridging land.

Long snark short: I disagree with the community's view of buildable land on water, and while I recognize that anything-to-anything deployers would allow for a few creative transformers, I do think allowing full utilization and development of the naval terrain by enabling the modder/player to targetedly dry up and use pieces of sea would greatly extend the number of strategies and tactics available to the player.
Not to mention that increasing the usefulness of water is long overdue - naval combat has been kind of neglected by Ares.

Kill #689
Support #943

Fight 2

I find the majority's insistence that "927 is redundant." highly amusing.

But alright, you shall have your wish. Death to #927!

I will be laughing my ass off when the other issue loses to something even better, and there are no upgrade changes because you people fail to account for the fact that there are four additional rounds of slaughter.

But hey..."as said at least 5 times above 927 is redundant, so support 518", right? Rolling eyes

Kill #927
Support #518
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
#13
Fight 1
The deploy-to-do-stuff issue is indeed very useful and I won't oppose its implementation. We had "Deployer stat changes" several days ago which solves a subset of problems #689 would solve. It would be better to combine #689 and the Deployer stat changes into one feature. #689 would not have to re-create every single tag the game has to also support changing the value when a unit has been deployed and there aren't many hooks needed: the deploy-converted unit is just an ordinary unit for the game. But this would give the "group type-select" feature more urgency.

With deploy-convert, you could...
  • ...disable the weapons and make the unit faster
  • ...type-convert a tank into a helicoper
  • ...enable a secondary fire mode
  • ...enable Mirage mode in exchange for weaker armor
  • ...convert a MCV into a contruction yard. Ok, that's a joke.

And because this should be combined with deployer stat changes and for a little twist in the end, I support Terraforming. Yeah, I know., this is the same logic Renegade criticised.

Fight 2
As someone already said, redundant stuff is redundant. And if Upgrades aren't upgraded some crowd will indeed get angry. If it is implemented, this redundant issue is redundant, as it has been said redundantly. But one can't stress it enough. So, let the planes follow waypoints.
#14
Results

Fight 1

Loser: #689
Victor: #943

Fight 2

Loser: #927
Victor: #518
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)