Game Development: Colorful Troll

[Ysh]

This support thing has been explained already and it makes perfect sense. If other supports prevented cave ins from removed supports, you would be able to completely strip a huge area of supports leaving just the last one (or removing the last one for just one cave in) by strategically linking and properly removing them. This would make no sense (a huge dug area with no supports at all)

I see no reason why this is such a big complaint anyway... If one wants to take advantage of some of the benefits of having a settlement in a mine, for example, they better deal with some drawbacks too

how would that work? The last support would have to cover all the tiles that would cave in.

This. As soon as cave in tile is no longer supported, it will cave in. This is with logic.

[Enjoyment]

Please, Jorb, fix the cave-ins

What's wrong with them? Judging by your screenshot they are working just fine.

Oh, I assume, the people below didn't ghet my point - I was talking about fixing boulders-in-walls thing - they shouldn't be created on wall tile/or should break wall/or should be able to be removed... That's the point.
And generally - I think it would be nice if there were no cave-ins from removing a support, if its area is covered by other existing supports (though Dani wrote some reasonig of it, I didn't get - maybe I miss something)

[Enjoyment]

This. As soon as cave in tile is no longer supported, it will cave in. This is with logic.

U still waiting for logic in H&H? ))
PM me if U find some

[Enjoyment]

I see no reason why this is such a big complaint anyway... If one wants to take advantage of some of the benefits of having a settlement in a mine, for example, they better deal with some drawbacks too

Oh, the reason is that we should build double the amount of supports we actually need... And can't remove useless ones... It's not a game-braking thing but it is annoying, when you trying to build something in mines...

[DaniAngione]

I probably expressed myself poorly (english is not my language).

I didn't theorize anything, I just expressed what Jorb already said before.
Supports supporting other support's don't check for each tile (like the support itself does) only if there is or not a support on its radius. Which means that if you have a line of 10 supports and every one of them is inside the range of the next one, you can destroy one by one without causing cave-ins and leave just one last support.

That is what I wanted to say. And that would be terrible because you would be able to clear a huge room and remove all supports but one. This is non-sensical.

Here's Jorb's own quote from this thread here although it was mentioned before somewhere else in more detail - I can't find it though, I'm sorry. Maybe it went to the archives or Hel?

Because if we "fix" it that means you can remove all minesupports save the last.

Also,

I see no reason why this is such a big complaint anyway... If one wants to take advantage of some of the benefits of having a settlement in a mine, for example, they better deal with some drawbacks too

Oh, the reason is that we should build double the amount of supports we actually need... And can't remove useless ones... It's not a game-braking thing but it is annoying, when you trying to build something in mines...

Yes, I understand that What I usually do is "play" the mine-field game to reach the most optimal spot for a support instead of building one on the safest short distance (inside the radius of the last one.) I know it can be annoying for some - but it works. I've managed to build a long road underground on W8 (like 3-4 grids long) and each pillar was distant enough from the last so the radii would touch but not intersect. It's just about patience, I guess.

[Enjoyment]

I probably expressed myself poorly (english is not my language).

I didn't theorize anything, I just expressed what Jorb already said before.
Supports supporting other support's don't check for each tile (like the support itself does) only if there is or not a support on its radius. Which means that if you have a line of 10 supports and every one of them is inside the range of the next one, you can destroy one by one without causing cave-ins and leave just one last support.

That is what I wanted to say. And that would be terrible because you would be able to clear a huge room and remove all supports but one. This is non-sensical.

Here's Jorb's own quote from this thread here although it was mentioned before somewhere else in more detail - I can't find it though, I'm sorry. Maybe it went to the archives or Hel?

Because if we "fix" it that means you can remove all minesupports save the last.

Also,

I see no reason why this is such a big complaint anyway... If one wants to take advantage of some of the benefits of having a settlement in a mine, for example, they better deal with some drawbacks too

Oh, the reason is that we should build double the amount of supports we actually need... And can't remove useless ones... It's not a game-braking thing but it is annoying, when you trying to build something in mines...

Yes, I understand that What I usually do is "play" the mine-field game to reach the most optimal spot for a support instead of building one on the safest short distance (inside the radius of the last one.) I know it can be annoying for some - but it works. I've managed to build a long road underground on W8 (like 3-4 grids long) and each pillar was distant enough from the last so the radii would touch but not intersect. It's just about patience, I guess.

Oh, Dani, I do know how the support mechanics works. And I do know how to use it. I just don't think it is ideal and can't be simplified. And I definately don't think that cave-in-boulders should spawn *IN* walls, without the abillity to remove them.
And what I don't get - is what was changed in this *fix*, cause it seems to me that suppuort-removing system works the same way before this *fix* in w8...
Im not complaining though - just have some thoughts to share...

[Enjoyment_2]

[*] We have begun discussing the prospect of taking some time to fix "object controlled objects", a server engine upgrade which basically would allow for some objects to depend upon other objects in a more developed fashion. The immediate purpose of this would be to allow for objects which can actually be walked upon, which could potentially allow us to do things like walk-on-walls, rafts that can actually be walked upon and onto, non-pocket world houses, and bridges. It is a significant project, so it might be more than one week in the making. I'm not 100% that we'll go for this next week, but we want to do it at some point in the not too distant future, mostly because it seems like one of the more significant level ups we can give the game, but also because it is foundational enough that plenty of things could potentially come to depend on it, so it'd be nice to have out of the way.
[*] Client optimizations.[/list]

how's going, guys?

[jorb]

how's going, guys?

Went for client optimization instead, and here we are now.

[wonder-ass]

how's going, guys?

Went for client optimization instead, and here we are now.

will you guys start on object controlled objects next or are you hesitant for another big project which might take up as much time as client rewrite?

[jorb]

All work presently aims, ultimately, at OCOs. It's the next major milestone.