Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R2: 1150 vs. 1044, 1080 vs. 1121
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

[0001150] the phyco path factor !!!??? vs. [0001044] load ini files on the loadscreen before the skirmish/mission/online game start

Fight 2

[0001080] a new [ perequset factor ] xp levels vs. [0001121] Parachuted=yes

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! Dual M16

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.
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.
[0001150] seems like a form of a chaos gas type effect, just I'd like it controllable whether it targets friendlies first, when there's nobody else around, or not at all.

[0001080] seems like the first step to a "generals powers" type arrangement. this could be fun if it's not an arse to code.
[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
I back 1044 and 1121

Is mentioned in 1150's notes that Morale system may incorporate the "psycho" logic

As for latter - one word, Parabombs

Support [0001044] for sure! Not becuse I requested it, but becuse I think it is very annoying to restard the game every time I change a tag, sometimes I try lot of diffrent values, and restarting the game all the time is pain in the ass!

Fight 2:
Support [0001121], new weapon types is always welcome! It open new possibilities
Java student.
Fight 1: Kill #1150, support #1044.
For #1150, Marshall wrote in the comments
Marshall Wrote:]In the related issue (750), if my suggested controls were implemented then this "psycho" logic could be achieved by using reverse values (i.e. lose morale for successful kills, no morale change for allied deaths).
And #1044 could indeed be useful, the thought of NOT having to restart the game for every little change sounds quite appealing.

Fight 2: I want parabombs. Support #1121, kill #1080.
#1044 would be great for testing, but #1150 is better for extending game logic. Though, I agree with MIDAS, it's basically glorified Chaos gas logic with a different starting point. I kinda like that, but it's still a bit annoying since Choas gas pisses me off to no end. xD

Support #1080 for sure. I absolutely love the idea since it makes people go on the offensive to potentially unlock new units instead of just camping like wusses. #1121 is cool though, but I don't see it to be used quite as often.
I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
I support [0001080], because I think that it would allow modders to force players to fight for their tech tree, instead of "camping like wusses".
I also support [0001044], because of the speed with which testing could be done, especially for graphical changes - and I believe it would be used more often "The Phyco Factor", which might as well be part of the much more carefully typed Morale/Bravery/Panic system.
What's wrong with "camping like wusses"? It's a valid play style. Can't get past their defences? Oh well, either A) shouldn't of let them build them or B) wait until their ore deposit runs out. I know for a fact camping is one of the harder methods, especially if you use walls and gates.

Personally I don't care for any of the major game changing ones here as they just don't feel like CnC. So I'm for 1044 and 1121.
For fight one:
Neither issue sounds overly brilliant to me. #1150 seems to be a subset of something that has already been assigned, thus I see little point in supporting it.

As for #1044, this sounds like it would involve a bit of upheaval with the game engine, in my opinion. Additionally, some sections of INI files would need to be loaded before the start of a skirmish game. Any part of the INIs that defines stuff for the interface (e.g. [MultiplayerDialogSettings], the countries and sides, new side and country interface-related flags, etc.) would need to be loaded separately back when the application itself is loading. Personally, I think the quick exit request that was in a previous DFD would give just as good a time-saving.

Also, for those of us using something like Windows Vista (and possibly 7, I'm not sure), keeping the game running while Alt-Tabbing out to another window isn't exactly a brilliant experience, considering Vista/7 will likely disable Aero during YR, and your screen resolution will likely have to change about as well.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of either issue, so I'm not declaring support for either of them.

For fight two:
The first issue sounds like a more complex version of a request I think I saw a while ago for a "Prerequisite.Kills" tag. Personally, I prefer the simpler Prerequisite.Kills request, rather than a complicated attempt at the Generals Powers system from... well... Generals.

The second issue definitely gets more interest from me. People have been trying for years to emulate RA1's parabombs. There are tutorials all over the place for complicated workarounds using InfantryTypes that looks like bombs, can't move and have suicide weapons. However, having used these workarounds myself in the past, they're really not that good. Without Rock/NumptyPatch or Ares, you'd need to sacrafice a Paradrop, and half the time the parabomb "infantry" wouldn't explode.

So, my stance here is support #1121, kill #1080.
Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.

Administrative Notice:

Given that there have been no new comments for almost a week, it is assumed this fight is over; we will proceed to judgement.
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.
Fight 1

I believe the phyco path factor !!!??? will live on in spirit for a long time, due to its name alone. I wanted to make that T-90's user title, but he didn't seem to be registered at the forums. Unhappy

Either way, independent from its memorable name, #1150, as several people pointed out, sounds mostly like a self-induced, alliance-targeted chaos gas state.
One on hand, that should make it "easy" to code - add a kill counter, send the unit into chaos state if it exceeds a certain amount of kills, add a hook to abort attack orders on friendlies while in phyco path state.
However, "easy" is in quotes for a reason. The very first part would require constant tracking of all kills all units make, with additional constant computation of how many kills per second they have, whether chaos state should be triggered, etc.
Sure, one can argue that the kill counter would be half the work for [0001147] Streak as well, so it'd be very efficient work to back, but independent from all potential performance issues (constant computation is never a good thing) - do we really want that work?

Lots of additional code to track all kills, to recalculate any given frame whether the unit has killed enough, changes to chaos logic or a complete reimplementation of a chaos logic clone, all just to gain...a loss of control?
Because, let's be serious here, that'd be all you're getting.
The unit doesn't attack enemies.
The unit doesn't magically get a different weapon.
So all it'd do is shoot the same people at the same rate it did before - all that'd be different is that you wouldn't have control anymore.

You would gain nothing but frustration when you're done killing the enemy's forces and want to move on, but can't, because your phyco paths don't acknowledge your commands.

I think with that under consideration, we can agree that #1044, if we can get it to work, would be the more worthwhile request.
Keep in mind, though, that an attempt to implement a feature is not always successful. #1044 would require restructuring several of the fundamental loading procedures of the game, and it might just plain not be possible.

Kill: #1150
Support: #1044

Fight 2

Despite what the braindead rushers like to propagate, actually injecting strategy into an RTS game and planning carefully rather than just clicking "Apocalypse" 50 times and sending your horde into the general area of the enemy is not "camping like wusses", it's the fucking point of the game.
If you want instant, constant fire, go play Quake or Unreal Tournament.

Independent from the fact that #1080 would defeat the purpose of the game by disallowing people to choose the strategy they want, instead forcing them to go on braindead killing sprees just to level up, it also gives the enemy control of your tech tree.
I mean, seriously. Think about this: Your access to higher technology would depend on being able to find the enemy, to attack him, and to actually win the individual duels.

What do you do if somebody actually does "camp like a wuss"? If he's on an island and kills the bridges, what do you do? Hope to god the modder didn't make aircraft dependent on kills? Hope the turtle doesn't have Patriots?

Making technological advancement dependent on kills would significantly shift the balance towards countries with long-range weaponry.
Imagine Great Britain vs. Cuba - the Britishman could happily take out all infantry sent towards him, making infantry assaults nothing but food for the tech tree.
Cuba would practically be forced to abandon infantry as a whole for that game, because the danger of giving GB access to more technology is too high.
Way to ruin gameplay.

Oh, and by the way, that's only if the players seek direct conflict anyway. What's stopping them from simply hunting each other's miners for an hour?
Prepare for the oh-so-exiting game where neither side has technology and no money to build basic units!
I've always wanted to see a two-hour-game ending in a battle between 5 soldiers and 3 tanks. Oh the excitement...

On the other hand, as far as I'm informed, #1121 is already partially implemented, it's a clear, narrow and simple request, and as ten years of parabomb tutorials can attest to, it's a much-wanted feature.

The choice is easy.

Kill: #1080
Support: #1121
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.
Fight 1
While I wouldn't recommend users from editing game files separately between network or internet matches, it is still a good issue to quickly change graphics or balancing without leaving the game. Stuff like adding countries or changing the multiplayer dialog settings don't count. If you think "Well, I could add another country to my mod" between matches, you should turn off your computer, grab pen and paper and design the mod you want to create. Such issues really can't come up between matches and if they do, restarting YR will give some time to think about what you really want. But balancing issues or graphical glitches will always happen and it would be awesome to be able to correct them between matches. INI files.

Phyco path ith no think cum paired too chat.

Fight 2
Giving good players better tech is not the way the game should be balanced. Rushing is something I don't like at all. Of course nothing speaks against disrupting your enemy by attacking power supply and refineries early in the game and one should always be prepared to counter an engineer trying to capture the construction yard.

If players have to attack early to get advanced tech, the match will be decided after the first minutes. One can tech up if one successfully attacks early. The enemy will be thrown back by the attack and he'll have a hard time to recover from that. If this isn't bad enough already, he will have to defend against high tech stuff the attacker can build now.

There are so many fun technologies available only available late in game. If you want to force a turtle out of his base, attack his harvesters. Build a major superweapon. He'll have ten minutes to prevent its launch. Build long range units that can take out base defenses. Or use other strategies to get into his base.

There are so many issues with the proposed feature. It will shift game durations to the extremes. Nobody attacks, long low tech game play. Early attacks, faster victory for the hit and run attacker or spammer. RA2 is fun because it allows to make mistakes and, if they are smaller, you can easily recover from them using tactics. This issue is not like it.

I vote, as most of you do, for the Parachutes. Bombers throwing one large MOAB or many smaller bombs are just great. It would make sense to support Parabombs as maybe a new SW like RA1 had would look lame without seeing big metal casings full of explosives with parachutes slowly descending into one's power plants.

As outlined above.
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)