No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Requests for features in the spring code.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

This new (BA?) mod feature is interesting... I would probably use it when i dont want to get stuck on the corpses.

What about making mod option "No wreck collision" so you can walk through wrecks, but also could reclaim them. (This should be in the list by default, but possible to set off by mod if so wanted).

But would the dragonteeths be without collision too? :/
User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4384
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Peet »

This already exists. Look at EE.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Forboding Angel »

you're kidding me right? I suggested that BA make lv1 corpses be non blocking over a year ago, and got flamed to high hell for it, and you think this is a new idea? :roll:

I swear, you kids that play only BA live under some sort of rock.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

in all fairness they being most ba players are not reading to catch up on the years of shit posted. Hell they are too busy enjoying ba and have not allocated time for other games. Can't expect too much.

OH, wait it is trademark.. bad trademark this goes in mod discussion, just kidding it's alright. I am pretty sure we can set features to non blocking
local featureDefs = {
ZAKU2_dead = {
blocking = false,
category = "arm_corpses",
damage = 1800,
description = "Wreckage",
featureDead = "rubble",
footprintX = 2,
footprintZ = 2,
height = "20",
hitdensity = "50",
metal = 190,
object = "ZAKU2_dead",
reclaimable = true,
seqnamereclamate = "tree1reclamate",
world = "All Worlds",
},
hey, if we didn't have it I would be 100% behind this request.
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

i know there is such tag in the corpses, but im talking about default mod option... is it even possible, since dragonteeths are corpses too :/
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by zwzsg »

At worst, you'll have to add two lines of code to skip walls.
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

nice, someone make it? =D
User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4384
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Peet »

TradeMark wrote:i know there is such tag in the corpses, but im talking about default mod option... is it even possible, since dragonteeths are corpses too :/
Why are you requesting a mod option in the engine feature requests forum?
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

wasnt sure was it possible engine side
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

You are requesting a mod option for ba in the ENGINE FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE you should know better.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by KDR_11k »

TradeMark wrote:wasnt sure was it possible engine side
Should have a featuredefs_post that can do that.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by zwzsg »

Well, I just tried.

I wanted to read the wreck list from the unit list, taking the wreckName field of each unit, and discarding walls by discarding units that have the isFeature set. However somehow I didn't manage to.

So for now I just made passable all features beside the ones whose name are hard coded into my code (right now teeth and fortifaction). That's not good because map features are probably made passable.

I'll try to make something better later tonight, I need at least to clean that code.

Someone allow sd7 as allowed extension on this board please!
Attachments
Passable_wrecks1.zip
(2.08 KiB) Downloaded 22 times
User avatar
CarRepairer
Cursed Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3359
Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by CarRepairer »

smoth wrote:You are requesting a mod option for ba in the ENGINE FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE you should know better.
Go down the list in this forum section and you'll find that all his threads are as so.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Pxtl »

Basically, TradeMark wants to make his own mod.

However, he doesn't want it to be a mod. He wants it to be a set of optional features built into BA and the engine itself, so that people will actually play on his servers that are running this not-mod, since Spring players will only play on a server that says BA on it.

Take note, he also wanted to be able to execute mod-altering lua in a map. Obviously because players are far more receptive to downloading maps than they are to mods.

See the common thread? He wants a mod that is still, in the lobby, Spring + BA.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by imbaczek »

and there's nothing wrong with that, he may get what he wants or may not. there are much better chances of him getting it if he submits engine patches, though there's never any guarantee anything will get accepted, even if stuff that makes sense usually is.
User avatar
CarRepairer
Cursed Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3359
Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by CarRepairer »

His ideas are all legitimate but he should take a page from the book of BasiC... If he really thinks that his ideas like full LoS and passable wrecks and echoing "YOU ARE A SUPER PLAYER" whenever you combomb and every other suggested feature is SO great, then instead of begging others to do it he can make a mutator and be master of his game, host it, and it will catch on.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

CarRepairer wrote:
smoth wrote:You are requesting a mod option for ba in the ENGINE FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE you should know better.
Go down the list in this forum section and you'll find that all his threads are as so.
smoth wrote: FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE

you (trademark) should know better.
if he was some random noob like most of the other mod specific requests I would not give him shit but he should know better.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Pxtl »

CarRepairer wrote:His ideas are all legitimate but he should take a page from the book of BasiC... If he really thinks that his ideas like full LoS and passable wrecks and echoing "YOU ARE A SUPER PLAYER" whenever you combomb and every other suggested feature is SO great, then instead of begging others to do it he can make a mutator and be master of his game, host it, and it will catch on.
Well, his point is a little different from Yan.

Yan want's to change BA into his idea of what it should be.

TradeMark doesn't want to change it for _everybody_, he just wants to run BA servers that, while they technically are running BA, are actually really playing a very peculiar game that is designed by TradeMark. He doesn't care about intruding on all the BA+DSD players and the hardcores with their 1v1s as long as he can have his crazy not-really-BA games on SpeedBall.

Which would be a great attitude, if it weren't for the fact that he thinks it should all be implemented as options on the Engine Options and Mod Options screens of BA and Spring.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

people need to learn how to make damn mutators.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Pxtl »

smoth wrote:people need to learn how to make damn mutators.
lol, did you see his reaction in another thread when I suggested that?

People only play BA. So, he wants to make sure that his game is still BA. Downloading a 20kb sdz file full of Lua is still too much impediment for the user.
Locked

Return to “Feature Requests”