Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rocket Damage #556

Open
psieg opened this issue Apr 1, 2014 · 4 comments
Open

Rocket Damage #556

psieg opened this issue Apr 1, 2014 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@psieg
Copy link
Contributor

psieg commented Apr 1, 2014

Currently rockets only cause minimal damage through collisions. The visual explosions should also destroy more voxels at the target (without increasing the rocket mass)

Probably something like collisionDamage (see collisionFieldOfDamage) is needed

@mrzzzrm
Copy link

mrzzzrm commented Apr 2, 2014

I will try to handle this, with the introduction of #414 I'll have to think through the WorldLogic-Pipeline anyway.
But I think I'll not introduce collisionDamage Attribute as Rockets, imo, have to decide themselves when they explode. Imo there should be a class DamageExplosions that can be arbitrarily created and will be piped into the DamageImpactGenerator or something

@mrzzzrm
Copy link

mrzzzrm commented Apr 2, 2014

An idea:

Even more radical, I claim that there is no such thing as a varying fieldOfDamage. That was just a hack to get craters look more natural. The damage dealt by colliding objects should be spread through the voxelcluster based on the incoming vector and a hard fieldOfDamage. However, the mere physical damage by projectiles should not be what causes the major part of the destruction. That should happen via the ExplosionDamage, imo.

What do you think?

@psieg
Copy link
Contributor Author

psieg commented Apr 2, 2014

The collissionFieldOfDamage was introduced because the Shockwave class was abandoned. If something like that is actually introduced, that would definitely be a better solution

@mrzzzrm
Copy link

mrzzzrm commented Apr 2, 2014

Yep, basically that would mean going back to shockwave. I'll think about it....

@mrzzzrm mrzzzrm self-assigned this Apr 7, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants