Ranged Units Shooting Through Walls

Donner · May 23, 2013

Ranged units can fire through walls and hit units at the other side. Can that be fixed in the future?

Lion.Kanzen · May 23, 2013

some time ago , A programmer was say: if we implement complex physics is dangerous because is possibly can lost some performance, but is implement basic, like AOM or EE maybe not.

krofna · May 23, 2013

some time ago , A programmer was say: if we implement complex physics is dangerous because is possibly can lost some performance, but is implement basic, like AOM or EE maybe not.

Lol'd. It lags horribly already, so what the heck?

Lion.Kanzen · May 23, 2013

haha, yeah but worst?

McAllisterw · May 23, 2013

I'm not a programmer, but does preventing arrows going through walls have to mean a drop in performance?

Lion.Kanzen · May 23, 2013

well, preventing is different, but so the walls now protect for attack of range units, but give it trajectory is that i mean in previous post, like a curve flight . see how work in Age of Mythology. some body talk if is possibly Rome Total War physic, that is complex.

http://www.wildfireg...ne&fromsearch=1

Edited May 23, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

zoot · May 23, 2013

I'm not a programmer, but does preventing arrows going through walls have to mean a drop in performance?

Collision detection can induce a performance penalty, depending on its accuracy.

**Mythos_Ruler** · May 23, 2013

Collision detection can induce a performance penalty, depending on its accuracy.

Could just use the wall's footprint in a 2D fashion.

Donner · May 24, 2013

Could just use the wall's footprint in a 2D fashion.

Would that also stop arrows being fired over walls?

Edited May 24, 2013 by Donner

**alpha123** · May 24, 2013

Would that also stop arrows being fired over walls?

Yes, it would assume walls have an infinite height.

Someone was already going to implement a quadtree for the RangeManager, we could use it for this as well and get away with decent performance. What I'd really prefer, however, is units not being able to see through walls (and by extension not able to shoot through them).

Donner · May 24, 2013

Yes, it would assume walls have an infinite height.
Someone was already going to implement a quadtree for the RangeManager, we could use it for this as well and get away with decent performance. What I'd really prefer, however, is units not being able to see through walls (and by extension not able to shoot through them).

It would be nice to also make the units not be able to see through trees.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Donner

**alpha123** · May 24, 2013

It would be nice to also make the units not be able to see through trees.

IMO that's going a bit too far. Trees aren't particularly big or important in this game, and I'm not sure what we'd gain by not allowing units to see through them. Additionally it would make gathering wood a bit unnecessarily harder.

Edited May 24, 2013 by alpha123

**historic_bruno** · May 24, 2013

Someone was already going to implement a quadtree for the RangeManager, we could use it for this as well and get away with decent performance. What I'd really prefer, however, is units not being able to see through walls (and by extension not able to shoot through them).

Why only walls? Then people will say, "My units can't see through walls, but they can see through civil centers, fortresses, houses, etc." I'm not sure if that's a direction we want to go in, but it would definitely change the feel of the game, maybe it's worth experimenting with restricted vision like that.

On the other hand, would it be enough to assess an accuracy penalty when attacking targets behind structures? That makes sense to me, there's no way accuracy would be unaffected by not having a clear LOS to the target.

**Yves** · May 24, 2013

On the other hand, would it be enough to assess an accuracy penalty when attacking targets behind structures?

All kind of behaviour that isn't visible/audible for the player is bad design IMO.

If the archers start shooting straight up into the air to hit targets behind walls/buildings and if that's a clearly visible difference then it shouldn't be a problem.

**alpha123** · May 24, 2013

Why only walls? Then people will say, "My units can't see through walls, but they can see through civil centers, fortresses, houses, etc." I'm not sure if that's a direction we want to go in, but it would definitely change the feel of the game, maybe it's worth experimenting with restricted vision like that.

That's a good point. I personally feel like every building would be a little excessive. Walls strike a good balance between not being annoying and adding new tactical possibilities. It would also make walls quite a bit more useful (currently they aren't very good).

Also it would be sort of weird since structures currently have their own LOS, so if we did that your own structures would block your LOS and add to it at the same time. I think it would be expected for walls to block both friendly and enemy LOS, so it would be inconsistent if we blocked LOS for only enemy structures, but strange if we blocked LOS for friendly structures.

On the other hand, would it be enough to assess an accuracy penalty when attacking targets behind structures? That makes sense to me, there's no way accuracy would be unaffected by not having a clear LOS to the target.

I agree with Yves on this one, but it would still be fairly interesting to experiment with. It would add an interesting dimension to the game's currently somewhat limited micro tactics.

**wraitii** · May 25, 2013

We need to consider performance though. If we go the whole way, a batch of archers firing might just slow the game down too much (unless using some stuffs like what Philip designed on his new long-range pathfinder this can be checked easily). Dynamically creating a 2D map for each unit is, imo, too slow, particularly as it would require a range query or more for each unit/formation.

selcis · August 30, 2013

Hi team, iam new to ubuntu and wanted to play 0ad game which is good as aoe in windows.

but when i start the game its always shows error in a window. please help me to resolve this and to play.

thanks :bye: . its failed opening on both from terminal and the desktop icon.

HP dv4-1216TU mode

OS: ubuntu 12.04 LTS (32 bit)

RAM: 4 GB

$ 0ad

Cache: 64 (total: 496) MiB

TIMER| InitVfs: 562.674 us

TIMER| InitScripting: 2.57532 ms

TIMER| CONFIG_Init: 75.6931 ms

X Error of failed request: BadRequest (invalid request code or no such operation)

Major opcode of failed request: 135 (GLX)

Minor opcode of failed request: 19 (X_GLXQueryServerString)

Serial number of failed request: 13

Current serial number in output stream: 13

UserReport.cpp(515): Assertion failed: "!m_Worker"

Assertion failed: "!m_Worker"

Location: UserReport.cpp:515 (~CUserReporter)

Call stack:

(0x8404070) /usr/games/pyrogenesis() [0x8404070]

(0x83a70f4) /usr/games/pyrogenesis() [0x83a70f4]

(0x83a7ef4) /usr/games/pyrogenesis() [0x83a7ef4]

(0x83a81fa) /usr/games/pyrogenesis() [0x83a81fa]

(0x8199106) /usr/games/pyrogenesis() [0x8199106]

(0xb6c38f51) /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x32f51) [0xb6c38f51]

(0xb6c38fdd) /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x32fdd) [0xb6c38fdd]

(0xb74d698c) /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(+0x3998c) [0xb74d698c]

(0xb73b9687) /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libSDL-1.2.so.0(+0x42687) [0xb73b9687]

(0xb74d6acb) /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(_XError+0x12b) [0xb74d6acb]

(0xb74d389d) /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(+0x3689d) [0xb74d389d]

(0xb74d4897) /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6(_XReply+0x2a7) [0xb74d4897]

(0xb7744387) /usr/lib/fglrx/libGL.so.1(+0x77387) [0xb7744387]

errno = 0 (Try again later)

OS error = ?

Sleeping until debugger attaches.

Please wait.

GNU gdb (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.4-2012.04-0ubuntu2.1) 7.4-2012.04

License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>

This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.

There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying"

and "show warranty" for details.

This GDB was configured as "i686-linux-gnu".

For bug reporting instructions, please see:

<http://bugs.launchpad.net/gdb-linaro/>.

Attaching to process 2001

Could not attach to process. If your uid matches the uid of the target

process, check the setting of /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope, or try

again as the root user. For more details, see /etc/sysctl.d/10-ptrace.conf

ptrace: Operation not permitted.

(gdb) Trace/breakpoint trap (core dumped)

Ranged Units Shooting Through Walls

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Join the conversation