search

Unvanquished / gameplay

Issue tracker for Unvanquished gameplay related feedback, ideas and suggestions
0 stars 1 forks source link

Allow wallwalking on buildables #20

Open ghost opened 3 years ago

ghost commented 3 years ago

I think it could be interesting to allow wallwalking on buildables. See that dretch on your armory? Are you sure you want to fire that luci shot at it?

Another, and likely more interesting, side effect this would have is that dretches and mantises would no longer be forced to jump over buildables, which would, I think, make them more interesting to play.

slipher commented 3 years ago

Seems more appropriate for https://github.com/Unvanquished/gameplay

ghost commented 3 years ago

too much repos, I'm lost :D Is there is a way to move stuff between my repos? I guess answer is "no" but...

illwieckz commented 3 years ago

Yes there is possible. Done.

What we can't do is transfer issue across organizations (we can transfer repositories across organizations but not issues), meaning for example we can't move from Unvanquished/Unvanquished to UnvanquishedAssets/unvanquished_src.dpkdir…

ghost commented 3 years ago

Typically the kind of cases when I'm happier to be proven wrong than to be proven right. Thanks.

illwieckz commented 3 years ago

With Gitlab be we would be able to do sub-groups, so maybe we would be able to transfer among everything while keeping “Game” and “Assets” groups because that would be groups belonging to the same organization…

ghost commented 3 years ago

maybe this can be closed, then?

Viech commented 3 years ago

I don't think wallwalking on buildables (and map objects like platforms) was ever disabled intentionally but it was just never implemented. I don't see a reason against this feature.

DolceTriade commented 3 years ago

I think the reason it was never implemented was because it looks bad. Since the models are bboxes, you would always be walking in thin air?

Viech commented 3 years ago

Could be a reason. But we have this feature now where legs clip to the visual surface, haven't we?

necessarily-equal commented 3 years ago

This would definitely look better if (once?) we give a bmodel (brush) to each buildable.

DolceTriade commented 3 years ago

Then if you were to shoot something wallwalking on a building, wouldn't you miss because it's server side hitbox may be completely off from where it is shown client side?

slipher commented 3 years ago

There are certainly gameplay considerations, since it would be very difficult to shoot at an alien wallwalking on a buildable without damaging the buildable.

illwieckz commented 3 years ago

Well, it looks like we need something better than our rough hitbox to begin with. 😅

ghost commented 3 years ago

There are certainly gameplay considerations, since it would be very difficult to shoot at an alien wallwalking on a buildable without damaging the buildable.

well, that'd make it interesting imo.

Well, it looks like we need something better than our rough hitbox to begin with. 

there will always be approximations.

DolceTriade commented 3 years ago

ya, but AABB will always have the most noticeable collision artifacts. If we had better collision detection, then a dretch under a turret barrel for example would actually be close to the location it is rendered client side whereas right now, it will be way off from where it is rendered with AABB.

ghost commented 3 years ago

TL;DR: I agree that current collisions do not look nice to the eye at all but this is unrelated to this topic.

AABB have horrible collisions only if they do not match the model's shape closely enough (armory, turrets, every cylinder actually, and there's lot of those for buildables). I notice that on (some) alien buildables, BBoxes are much, much closer to the model, even if this means putting minor parts ouf the model (barricade, egg (which even have a strange tendency to destroy stuff around when growing, dunno why), acid tubes). This should (yes, it think it should) probably be done for some human models (armory, telenode (less important, but still)).

There are probably other solutions doable (allow to use TT_CAPSULE or TT_BISPHERE instead of AABB; allow to have 1 external AABB filled with smaller boxes) but they all require more work and I do not have enough knowledge on the topic (nor time to spend on that for now, busy enough with bots).

I understand that the game's gameplay have to be limited by what engine can do, but I think discussing the problem of collisions (which each dev and player of unvanquished is well aware of existence, I'm certain of it) should not be in the gameplay bugtracker, but in unvanquished's one.

ghost commented 2 years ago

This should (yes, it think it should) probably be done for some human models (armory, telenode (less important, but still)).

Something I had forgotten when I wrote this is: original armory have a drawing which fits much better with the technical limitations of AABB.

As for Telenodes, the model is nice and adapted, but the BBox is just too big. Maybe it would be better to 1st try to have models which do not make the technical limitations obvious, and then implement this mechanism?