Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612
#5
I'd only support 461 if as was suggested in the issue it encompassed adding control for other missions as well. Personally I feel this could again be a special case of the proposed deploys into where you have two identical units, one that passive acquires and one that doesn't and can depoy each into the other as though it was the same unit switching modes. Again all the deploys stuff should be rolled up into as single accepted request and their oponenents go forward IMO. Of course the developers might take a different view Wink As it stands I'd rather see the Area temporal feature go forward on the basis that ideally some varient of deploys into will be against something I don't care about, will get implemented and will allow the other use cases that were up against stuff I did like.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:39:06
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by mt. - 11.08.2010, 03:58:51
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by eva-251 - 11.08.2010, 09:01:07
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:02:28
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by Speeder - 11.08.2010, 19:23:49
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by MRMIdAS - 11.08.2010, 20:09:15
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by Beowulf - 11.08.2010, 22:10:22
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - by DCoder - 18.08.2010, 18:21:44



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)