No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
Moderator: Moderators
No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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? :/
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? :/
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
This already exists. Look at EE.
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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?
I swear, you kids that play only BA live under some sort of rock.

I swear, you kids that play only BA live under some sort of rock.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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
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
hey, if we didn't have it I would be 100% behind this request.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",
},
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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 :/
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
At worst, you'll have to add two lines of code to skip walls.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
nice, someone make it? =D
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
Why are you requesting a mod option in the engine feature requests forum?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 :/
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
wasnt sure was it possible engine side
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
Should have a featuredefs_post that can do that.TradeMark wrote:wasnt sure was it possible engine side
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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!
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
- CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
Go down the list in this forum section and you'll find that all his threads are as so.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.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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.
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.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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.
- CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
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.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
CarRepairer wrote:Go down the list in this forum section and you'll find that all his threads are as so.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.
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.smoth wrote: FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE
you (trademark) should know better.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
Well, his point is a little different from Yan.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.
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.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
people need to learn how to make damn mutators.
Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?
lol, did you see his reaction in another thread when I suggested that?smoth wrote:people need to learn how to make damn mutators.
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.