Haven 2.0: "Hafen"

[Oddity]

Random, not particularly interesting IRC chats last night

(18:39:09) <BOBDOLE> HEY IF THIS IS LOFTAR, IS SHOOTING OVER WALLS BECAUSE HEARTHLINGS HAVE XRAY VISION GOING TO BE A THING IN HAFEN TOO?
(18:39:54) <loftar> We haven't really decided on that yet.
(18:40:58) <BOBDOLE> Is there some reasoning behind it, or is it just difficult to fix?
(18:40:59) <grapie> you don't need to have xray vision, when walls are same height as hearthlings
(18:41:20) <loftar> Well, one of the reasons is that it would also make it impossible to shoot through a drying frame.
(18:41:40) <BOBDOLE> and trees too?
(18:41:42) <loftar> Another reason, though, is that I'm not really sure which way is best, mechanically.
(18:41:56) <grapie> using objects as cover actually sounds like fun
(18:42:07) <loftar> Well, yeah, I know.
(18:42:23) <loftar> But it is also slightly retarded to not be able to shoot over a wall, also; it is an arrow and all.
(18:43:11) <grapie> have you seen the video about archery Arvin posted?
(18:43:18) <BOBDOLE> no
(18:43:19) <loftar> I don't think so.
(18:43:52) <BOBDOLE> What if instead of using things as cover, the game just checks if you are inside an enclosed area
(18:43:54) <grapie> viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38199#p505216
(18:44:07) <deus> loftar: why don't u ever come on to be civil?
(18:44:13) <loftar> Do you expect the game to iterate potentially the entire map to see if it's enclosed?
(18:44:27) <loftar> Not that I see why it matters if it's enclosed or just cover.
(18:44:43) <loftar> Got better things to do, like working on Haven, perhaps.
(18:45:01) <BOBDOLE> I can't wait
(18:45:05) <deus> i don't believe you
(18:45:10) <deus> not in the slightest
(18:45:19) <loftar> Your problem, I guess.
(18:45:21) <BOBDOLE> ok, I could wait
(18:45:23) <BOBDOLE> but I don't want to
(18:45:35) <loftar> That's too bad for you.
(18:45:37) <deus> your problem is with losing
(18:45:54) <deus> and insecurity
(18:46:13) <loftar> Losing what, exactly?
(18:46:22) <loftar> I will admit I was not aware that IRC was a contest.
(18:46:25) <loftar> My mistake, perhaps.
(18:46:40) <deus> game theory
(18:46:49) <BOBDOLE> You shouldn't take deus seriously.
(18:47:10) <deus> he always does...
(18:47:27) <deus> or he quit, and now does crack
(18:48:06) <loftar> But not doing that would clearly be rude.
(18:48:20) <deus> some people cant admit that they are wrong
(18:48:26) <BOBDOLE> You are a gentleman Loftar
(18:48:58) <loftar> Takes one to know one, amirite.
(18:49:15) <deus> not entirely
(18:49:17) <BOBDOLE> I'm no gentleman, I'm a troll at best
(18:49:40) <deus> childish fuckwit?
(18:49:51) <BOBDOLE> When you created haven was your intent to have things like cover for archery, but it's just difficult to implement?
(18:50:04) <loftar> No, it wouldn't be difficult at all to implement.
(18:50:11) <loftar> I even have it in the code, just commented out.
(18:50:54) <deus> can you have comments in comments in c
(18:51:14) <BOBDOLE> What about detection like when someone is behind an object?
(18:51:35) <BOBDOLE> I don't mean directly behind
(18:51:41) <loftar> /* and */ don't nest, if that's what you mean.
(18:51:42) <BOBDOLE> but when something is in the way
(18:51:55) <loftar> Certainly, there are many mechanics in Haven using this.
(18:51:56) <deus> yeah
(18:51:58) <loftar> Pathfinding, not least.
(18:52:15) <deus> ive been fucking around with asm and macroeconomics
(18:52:32) <deus> (unrelated)
(18:52:37) <loftar> Sounds like a very natural combination.
(18:52:51) <deus> bread and butter!
(18:53:10) <BOBDOLE> I mean like this, two characters 11 squares apart in a straight line, and there is a tree in the middle
(18:53:23) <loftar> Yes, I know that's what you meant.
(18:53:42) <deus> and youve been writing haven? with no entertainment?
(18:53:56) <Oddity> #if 0
(18:53:58) <Oddity> #endif
(18:55:06) <BOBDOLE> I made a post a short while ago about catching up after death
(18:55:38) <BOBDOLE> Like when a character is killed, they would gain LP 3X faster until they reach the LP that they had before death
(18:55:42) <deus> http://i.imgur.com/kBMcq6j.jpg
(18:55:56) <loftar> Yes, I thought that was quite retarded.
(18:55:57) <BOBDOLE> What do you think about that?
(18:56:01) <BOBDOLE> ah
(18:56:42) <loftar> Mostly, I just dislike any such "ad hoc" solutions to anything.
(18:56:56) <loftar> That have no basis in anything but just do "something" to solve a perceived problem.
(18:57:21) <BOBDOLE> I was trying to come up with ways to keep people playing after they died
(18:57:36) <deus> a good game?
(18:58:14) <loftar> Indeed
(18:58:36) <deus> that was meant as an insult to both ;(
(18:58:52) <loftar> And, well, to be fair, I think it's quite natural if people take a break after they've died in a game like this.
(18:59:06) <loftar> It doesn't even necessarily mean that they actually quit.
(18:59:53) <deus> >uncivil
(18:59:59) <BOBDOLE> Are you against all catchup mechanisms then?
(19:00:27) <loftar> Not necessarily just per the metric that they allow people to "catch up" (whatever that means).
(19:00:39) <loftar> But I don't consider it a constructive angle to consider new mechanics from.
(19:00:52) <deus> ppl keep bases and their production
(19:00:55) <deus> if they play right
(19:01:32) <deus> granted that is to the detriment of "the adventurer life" atm
(19:01:33) <loftar> And there's that too, indeed.
(19:01:36) <deus> and not optimal
(19:01:43) <deus> stop agreeing with me
(19:01:53) <BOBDOLE> When you created skulls, why did you decide on 1% of their lp?
(19:02:09) <deus> it's unnatural!
(19:02:12) <loftar> Well, when we created skulls, we decided on that since that was the previous murder LP deal.
(19:02:28) <loftar> That from W4 and prior, that is.
(19:02:39) <BOBDOLE> is that low number to prevent people from farming alts for lp to feed their mains?
(19:03:01) <BOBDOLE> 5% would probably still prevent that and make murder more worth it XD
(19:03:11) <BOBDOLE> though i'm a pvper so I can't talk
(19:03:13) <loftar> I don't really think we need to incentivize murder. ^^
(19:03:25) <deus> lol wut
(19:03:44) <deus> as if you have ever had aspirations of co operation
(19:03:53) <loftar> ^^
(19:04:08) <BOBDOLE> ha
(19:04:54) <BOBDOLE> Have you ever used anyones idea from c&I?
(19:05:05) <deus> it wants to be "misunderstood"
(19:05:05) <loftar> Sure, the creamy cock. ^^
(19:05:24) <deus> prepare your forum anus for penis ideas
(19:05:46) <loftar> But apart from that, no, we almost never use an idea "as is", because that would just be weird.
(19:05:51) <deus> and of the infantile likeness
(19:06:25) <loftar> In order to fit into the game and make sense, we have to rebuild any ideas from our existing foundations.
(19:06:46) <deus> bull
(19:06:50) <loftar> If something good is said in C&I, we instead tend to try and analyze what about it is good, and then build a new idea around it.
(19:07:12) <BOBDOLE> Have you ever played the old age of empires games?
(19:07:19) <loftar> A little bit.
(19:07:30) <BOBDOLE> What do you think of fish traps, like the ones in those games.
(19:07:31) <deus> motorcycle cheat
(19:07:39) <Oddity> I love murder LP more than I will ever love hearthling skull LP ;_;
(19:07:48) <loftar> I don't have any memory of any fist traps in there. Do they differ from those in Salem?
(19:08:03) <loftar> Why, Oddity? What do you consider the defining difference between the two?
(19:08:06) <BOBDOLE> I never knew salem had fish traps
(19:08:24) <loftar> http://salemwiki.info/index.php/Fish_Trap
(19:08:26) <deus> having to wait the body
(19:08:29) <BOBDOLE> that is awesome
(19:09:08) <BOBDOLE> yes, its about the same
(19:09:21) <loftar> Oh well, I should go to bed.

[simimi]

" (18:39:09) <BOBDOLE> HEY IF THIS IS LOFTAR, IS SHOOTING OVER WALLS BECAUSE HEARTHLINGS HAVE XRAY VISION GOING TO BE A THING IN HAFEN TOO?
(18:39:54) <loftar> We haven't really decided on that yet.
(18:40:58) <BOBDOLE> Is there some reasoning behind it, or is it just difficult to fix?
(18:40:59) <grapie> you don't need to have xray vision, when walls are same height as hearthlings
(18:41:20) <loftar> Well, one of the reasons is that it would also make it impossible to shoot through a drying frame."

Well, you could have 2 sorts of things, some were arrow pass and some no.
Just put a single digit 0 or 1 in the code of the object type ( wall, drying frame, ...).

[foomanchu]

" (18:39:09) <BOBDOLE> HEY IF THIS IS LOFTAR, IS SHOOTING OVER WALLS BECAUSE HEARTHLINGS HAVE XRAY VISION GOING TO BE A THING IN HAFEN TOO?
(18:39:54) <loftar> We haven't really decided on that yet.
(18:40:58) <BOBDOLE> Is there some reasoning behind it, or is it just difficult to fix?
(18:40:59) <grapie> you don't need to have xray vision, when walls are same height as hearthlings
(18:41:20) <loftar> Well, one of the reasons is that it would also make it impossible to shoot through a drying frame."

Well, you could have 2 sorts of things, some were arrow pass and some no.
Just put a single digit 0 or 1 in the code of the object type ( wall, drying frame, ...).

i highly doubt its as simple as you think
the server would have to do an object check and somehow limit it to within X tiles of the player (a custom search function that would take players coord and check every tile within X radius i guess), calculate the trajectory between targets (easy), calculate if any objects within the search radius has a hitbox along the trajectory (easy but calculation intensive) then a boolean to see if the missle was to reach the target or get blocked by the object (which is what you suggested).
and it would have to be server side rather than client side otherwise client modders could just modify that boolean and the forum would QQ
considering the lag issues from a couple years ago and the ability to multiclient this game, if the function for "arrow pass or no" was that calculation intensive some person could just load up tons of clients, get them slings and to all attack a target at the same time in a location thats heavily populated with objects.. who knows.. could be more of a pain than its worth

i had a similar problem when i wrote my own pathfinder a couple years ago.. but the benefit for me was that i could do a full object search of everything around me and my client was limited to onscreen information only (whereas the server sees all)

[Potjeh]

I think arrows hitting the first object that obstruct their path would be cool. Ranged weapons in Salem were on the right track, but not quite there because it was too static. IMO we should have an accuracy bar, but it should work differently. It would fill at a constant rate while aiming, regardless of your target's movement. The limit would be that you would only be able to hold the bow drawn for a short time. You could still move while aiming, but only at walk speed, and there would be an obvious animation for drawing a bow. The objective of the shooter would be to get a clear shoot in the limited time he has a high accuracy bar, and the objective of the target would be to use cover and superior speed (shooter is limited to walk) to either put more distance between the two of them or close in, depending how brave he feels.

[loftar]

Well, you could have 2 sorts of things, some were arrow pass and some no.
Just put a single digit 0 or 1 in the code of the object type ( wall, drying frame, ...).

Well, yes, but that is another variable to maintain for every object. If we keep doing things that way, then the number of variables to maintain scales as O(nm), if n is the number of objects in the game and m the number of mechanics. That is not sustainable.

[ArvinJA]

Well, you could have 2 sorts of things, some were arrow pass and some no.
Just put a single digit 0 or 1 in the code of the object type ( wall, drying frame, ...).

Well, yes, but that is another variable to maintain for every object. If we keep doing things that way, then the number of variables to maintain scales as O(nm), if n is the number of objects in the game and m the number of mechanics. That is not sustainable.

No way to subclass stuff instead of adding boolean flags to all objects?

[loftar]

No way to subclass stuff instead of adding boolean flags to all objects?

That doesn't really change the fundamental problem, though. I'm not talking about the computational overhead of having many variables in storage or otherwise about data structures, but about the administrative overhead of maintaining the information.

[Potjeh]

Is there any reason (other than minor aesthetics gain) why any solid object should be permeable to arrows?

[overtyped]

Is there any reason (other than minor aesthetics gain) why any solid object should be permeable to arrows?

Did you even read the posts above you ? The problem is none can afk outside their house without risking being shot through a wall.

[painhertz]

Is there any reason (other than minor aesthetics gain) why any solid object should be permeable to arrows?

Not permeable, it's ballistics. Granted you're not looking at 1-1 but I always imagined the archery/wall interaction as the arrows arcing OVER the wall.