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

Make service depot passable #16934

Open
matjaeck opened this issue Aug 11, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@matjaeck
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 11, 2019

Tested on ea80a13. Players expect that they can place the service depot anywhere without worrying about path finding since it should be completely passable.

Initially thought it was always like this, but turned out to be a feature request.

@abcdefg30

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 11, 2019

I think that is how it always worked. Fwiw, fixing that might lead to pathfinding issues like you have with the ERCC refinery, where units try to path through occupied area (in this case when a unit repairs in the middle) even if they could go around it. Perhaps the pathfinding fixes that are currently added help here already.

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 11, 2019

You are right - it has at least been like this in last release. I remembered it wrong.

@matjaeck matjaeck closed this Aug 11, 2019

@tovl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 11, 2019

The fact that this is not a regression does not mean it is a bad idea though. Making the service depot passable can easily be done based on bleed. Units being repaired in the middle still block other units like they should.

@matjaeck matjaeck changed the title Service depot impassable unless ordered to repair Make service depot passable Aug 11, 2019

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 11, 2019

The fact that this is not a regression does not mean it is a bad idea though.

[18:32:49] | <abcdefg30> we could repurpose it to a feature request

Reopening for discussion.

@matjaeck matjaeck reopened this Aug 11, 2019

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 11, 2019

One consideration for me is always how it was in the original and our current setup is accurate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.