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


Messages In This Thread
DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by Renegade - 11.07.2010, 20:32:50
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by Beowulf - 11.07.2010, 21:59:03
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by MRMIdAS - 11.07.2010, 22:31:37
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by Deformat - 12.07.2010, 13:10:00
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by WoRmINaToR - 12.07.2010, 22:13:05
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by Renegade - 13.07.2010, 23:37:07
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by AlexB - 14.07.2010, 00:48:53
RE: DFD: 943 vs. 689, 518 vs. 927 - by Renegade - 14.07.2010, 19:46:00



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)