Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
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

[349] Add a "Guard area" or "Combat Air Patrol" feature vs. [718] Extend crate spawning logic

Fight 2

[765] Allow buildings to have weapons & garrison logic vs. [429] SW.RequiredHouses and SW.ForbiddenHouses

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.
Fight 1:
#349 is more useful and far more popular.

Support #349
Kill #718

Fight 2:
Unless I misunderstand it, #429 basically requests something that is already possible through work-arounds. It would make things a bit more convenient for some modders, but it's not something the players of the mod would benefit from.

#765 is a different story, it would allow for buildings similiar to the SC2 bunker with weapon upgrade, and would be really nice in combination with the unhardcoded Urban Combat values.

support #765
kill #429
Fight 1:

Kill this.

Save this.

Reason: A proper air combat system such as this improves an entire type of unit, and can significantly expand gameplay. I feel sorry for #718 getting put up against one of the most supported issues, but neat possible crate combinations just isn't nearly as impactful as proper air.

Fight 2:

Kill this.

Support this.

Reason: I don't really mind doing stuff like the American Air Force HQ for SW country specialization. Having a weapon on a garrisonable building is a great thing that I would definitely use though. A garrisonable cannon, a bunker with auto turrets, there are quite good possibilities for this.
For fight one:
Well, both of these aren't overly massive issues from what I can tell, but anyway. Aircraft have long been in need of a Guard function, yes. However it seems such a minor issue compared to most of the other things spinning around in these DFDs.

Extending the crate dropping logic seems to have more merits, in my opinion. Of course, it's hardly a good thing for me to say I can't off the top of my head think of any major usage cases beyond ore miners dropping ore crates. However, it does open up a lot more possibilities for modders to play with rather than simply making aircraft guard.

Therefore, my stance is support #718, kill #349.

For fight two:
The first issue, in my opinion, has a much more limited usage case. Yes, occupiable buildings not being able to have weapons of their own is a game bug, but how often would modders create such a thing anyway? While I would like to see this bug eventually fixed, the second issue captures my attention a lot more.

Of course, I say that, the second issue really would benefit more from more super weapon clones/types. However, at the minute, it could be used to create country-specific paradrops without having to make separate buildings for each country (e.g. GAAIRC and AMRADR). Even the usage case described in the tracker issue, giving one or more countries an 'upgraded version' of a super weapon would still work quite well.

Therefore, my stance is support #429, kill #765.
Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
I support #349 because I think it will be a great improvement for YR aircrafts, especially now with their ability to attack air. Patrolling fighters? In YR? It's needed. Crates aren't THAT important for gameplay. Kill #718

As for the second fight, I'd rather see garrison+weapon combo working than country-based superweapons, however I feel that the second option is generally more useful for modders. I've seen lots of country-based support weapons in NAbomination era and nobody would have to clone basic buildings for the purpose of giving countries specific supers. I support #429.
[Image: mainbanner2.jpg]

Mental Omega 3.0 in the web:
[Image: mdbutton.png][Image: fbbutton.png][Image: ytbutton.png]
Fight 1
Kill 718
It's nowhere near as useful as 349. 718 allows us to customize crate drops by technotypes. It's useful for joking around, but if you're serious about balancing the mod, there's not much utility to this feature in the least.

Support 349
Targeting aircraft with other aircraft is tedious and frustrating as it stands- the value of even having air-to-air combat aircraft is reduced hugely by this. Being able to tell aircraft to just guard areas and attack anything near them would be a VAST improvement over what we have now. There's a reason that this is the most popular issue on the Bugtracker, and I reckon that this is it.

Fight 2
This is tough.
Kill 429
I like this not only because I once wanted to do something similar in my mod, but also because it offers players the option to have different types of buildings. Fortresses often have their own complements of weapons, in addition to the weapons of the men that garrison them. The same goes for bunkers and gun emplacements.

Support 765
This issue is good, and there are no real work-arounds. You can forbid Russians from building the American Airforce Command, but you can't stop them from capturing it and gaining the paradrop- other than making it uncapturable, which isn't an optimal solution.
Star Strike Next Beta :V.7x -- (current version=V.6x Build 2)
Star Strike TC Forums
Star Strike Website
[349] gets my vote, it's feature everyone wants, and will allow more strategy in YR.

[765] is a feature that is OK as outlined in the bugtracker, but I think would make more sense if the opentopped logic were extended to allow buildings too, this may even solve the issue of garrisonned troops having one fixed range.
[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
Support #349. I have been dying for a feature like this since modder patches have been announced. This will take aircraft from a more backseat role to a viable front-line attack role, which is sorely needed since aircraft are almost a waste in YR. Crates are awesome, but they don't quite stack up against proper aircraft guard support.

Support #765. While I like the ideas put forth by 429, I don't feel it's quite as useful allowing structures to include a weapon of their own and a garrison as well. #765 allows for some interesting combinations for base defenses and tech structures. #429 is only really useful for supporting country specific superweapons, which can, alternatively, be worked around through an upgrade plug.
I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
In support of 429, my TC is going to have an alien race that can absorb human structures, but they sure as hell shouldn't get access to the American paradrop (!?!?)
I can see the desire for garrison+working weapon, but not above control of the SWs available to each country.

I guess with round 3 we're getting into the territory of "support both". But if I have to pick, I support 429.
Ever wondered what the hell is going on?
Believe me friend you're not the only one.

Check out Launch Base for RA2/YR -
Also home to the Purple Alert mod, 1.002 UMP, and the YR Playlist Manager.

Administrative Notice:

Since the last post in this discussion was three days ago, it is assumed to be 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
This clearly goes to the air patrol feature. As most of you pointed out, it is better issue. Having a unit drop a create is not that bad. You could get money from destroying miners or a veterancy crate from destroying epic units, or getting a one-shot nuke from destroying a Demolition Truck, or whatever. Being able to let Harriers guard the ore until the next miner shows up is just as cool. The feature would also extend aircrafts' use as defensive force instead of them just being purely offensive.

Fight 2
I don't know what to do here. Both issues are good, with small glitches each. Super weapons should be extended to support something like this, but what if you want to provide a SW only if you capture the American radar, but not if a Brit builds it? You still have to have two buildings in that case (but this should be a rare special case, however).

Garrisoning a building bearing a weapon is a nice idea, but the OpenTopped logic would be an even larger step to take. Such buildings should be seldom, almost as seldom as the country-specific SWs, but the SWs can provide upgraded/downgraded versions for specific countries also.

As there is a remis here and all arguments of supporters and opponents are almost evenly spread out, and the issues in the tracker don't differ that much from each other comment-wise and supporters-wise.

I chose the SW.RequiredHouses and SW.ForbiddenHouses issue because I think it is more versatile and it would be more useful to modders.
Fight 1

Ah, the legendary #349.

Nothing to decide here, really.

Kill: #718
Support: #349

Fight 2

Tougher, but mostly because I don't care for either of them.
Oh noes, they get the American Paradrop! How could this be?!
Well, maybe because I took over the American Airforce Command, put a gun to the operator's head, and told him to call in air support for us.
What do you expect? If the Air Force gets perfectly normal-sounding order from an outpost that has requested paradrops multiple times before through the same operator, why would they distrust him? It's not like they can see the bad guys behind the operator.

And as for the need for a separate building...I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. If I have an Ion Cannon, and a Super Ion Cannon, maybe I want my Super Ion Cannon to be visually different from the regular Ion Cannon - in which case I'd need a separate building anyway.

I understand there are situations where it doesn't make much sense, story-wise, that a certain faction gets a certain SW, but that is the point where you have to remember it's just a game.
How frustrating would it be for players if they invested a lot of time, credits and effort to capture a super weapon (or acquire the necessary technology), only to get nothing in return, just because they're the wrong faction?
And how do you justify it, in most cases? The Allies captured the Iron Curtain, but it's password-protected, all Soviets committed suicide, and no scientist can figure out how the thing works? Sounds a bit contrived, if you're asking me.

All in all, an issue, yes, but not a big one, and certainly not as alarming as the request makes it out to be.

#765 isn't the Best Request Ever™ either, but at least it might see regular combat in some mods.

Kill: #429
Support: #765
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.
Support #765.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)