Adds support for weapons with reach #24395

ghost · 2017-02-24T00:29:34Z

As requested by like three people on the forums. Want a whip that can smack people from long-distance? Now you can. This PR doesn't change the reach of any weapons but just adds support, so we can hopefully make combat more interesting.

ChangelingRain · 2017-02-24T00:30:13Z

This bypasses obstacles. You need a bit of tuning, mayhap.

ghost · 2017-02-24T00:31:45Z

Any recommendations? Don't know how to find dense objects in a path

PKPenguin321 · 2017-02-24T00:55:32Z

Hey somebody's actually coding it!!! ❤ xhuis the god

PKPenguin321 · 2017-02-24T00:56:58Z

Oh this will need support for recognizing the distance hit from so we can have different effects for hits at different ranges

RandomMarine · 2017-02-24T03:16:52Z

code/_onclick/click.dm

@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@

 	// Allows you to click on a box's contents, if that box is on the ground, but no deeper than that
 	if(isturf(A) || isturf(A.loc) || (A.loc && isturf(A.loc.loc)))
-		if(A.Adjacent(src)) // see adjacent.dm
+		if(A.Adjacent(src) || W.reach >= get_dist(src, A)) // see adjacent.dm


What if someone wants to make a weapon that only works when standing on the same tile?

Not supported unfortunately unless I remove the adjacent check. That's not something I'd do lightly, either!

else if(!A.Adjacent(src)) && w.reach blah blah can do the trick, no?

I suppose it could.

A weapon that only works on the same tile already works.
Look at the logic, it's Adjacent OR having a reach more or equal to the distance between you and the target.
if you're on top of eachother, there's no distance, so a reach of 0 would be "same tile only"

And that it would succeed regardless and make reach 0 weapons irrelevant.
Sorry for double post, goddamn phone

It would, but this if is an OR (||)

var/A = FALSE var/B = TRUE if (A || B) world << "wew"

this, not surprisingly, produces "wew"

Are you tired? drunk? high? I don't see how at this point in time you don't know how an OR works, if I have time at some point you'll have to throw some questions my way because these past few PRs have shown you seem really far behind.

Hmm, I do see however that adjacency would always win the 0 case, if that's what you were trying to say. (The if will always succeed on a same-tile 0 range weapon)
You could snowflake a reach of 1 to be the only case that runs Adjacent(), if you -really- want 0 reach weapons.

if(W.reach == 1 && A.Adjacent(src)) ... else if(W.reach >= get_dist(src, A)) if(do_some_checks_like_dense_lines_and_stuff()) ...

Well, I woke up thirty minutes ago, so I guess I'm just tired. Here's how I'm reading it:

Adjacent is true if they're nearby.
Reach is true if they're within a certain range

Say we have the prank gun, which works on only your tile. And you have a mob on your tile that you want to prank.

Both checks pass. Mob gets pranked. YouTube ad revenue goes through the roof.

Now the mob moves one tile above you.

The reach check fails, so we check Adjacent. That one succeeds, because the mob is indeed adjacent.

Thus, the hit succeeds, because it uses either check and not both checks.

Analogies aside, it's super easy to change this, and I likely will later today to support these kind of weapons.

Right, didn't see your comment. thanks mobile git!

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T08:50:36Z

@PKPenguin321 I did this before, with full support for larger attack animation too (because otherwise you have a weapon that reaches 3 tiles but the animation only goes one turf), I didn't PR it because it just generally doesn't feel right.

and for that, I guess I'm 👎 on this

FantasticFwoosh · 2017-02-24T11:03:41Z

@Xhuis why not have it just hit obstacles in its path? Then we could have something going where you could accidentally recoil yourself if you miss. Any weapon can accidentally bash pipes in maint etc.

If not a mob, add recoil (unless there is none) in not very technical terms.

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:07:52Z

It certainly can, but I'm still not sure how to get a list of turfs between here and there to check for those obstacles at. I'll have to experiment around later.

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:09:37Z

@Xhuis getline(A,B) will list all of the turfs between A and B, you can loop over this list to add all of those turf's contents to another list, and go through everything.

alternatively, some kind of projectile.

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:13:42Z

That solves most of my problems. Thanks! I still don't know if this is worth it, though, because of how much slower it's going to make every attack.

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:15:21Z

@Xhuis simple, only run that code IF it's the reach that caused the attack, if it was adjacency that caused it, there's no real line to check anyway.

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:23:19Z

At this point, I have a dilemma. Either I can cut out the adjacent check entirely and replace it with the reach check and an incapacitated check to stop silly attacks, or I can put in reach checks for special cases. Which one would be better?

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:25:12Z

Well, ideally it'd all be one proc that did the "is this attack valid?", so you'd need a proc that uses getline(), and also does all the checks Adjacent() does.

the getline() is apparently a superfast algorithm, so running it for 1-tile distances probably won't be any more costly than Adjacent()

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:27:05Z

Hm. So, like, a new proc called 'CheckReach' or something? That could work, especially if I just include that adjacency check in it for weapons of range 1 or higher.

I'll have to do that when I get home, though, because I'm not a computer whiz and I won't write code from my phone on the GitHub editor.

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:35:41Z

@Xhuis yes, exactly, CheckReach() sounds like an appropriate name also.
One way of doing it, perhaps, is:

/proc/CheckReach(atom/A, atom/B, reachDist = 1)
    var/list/turfs = getline(A,B)
    switch(turfs.len)
        if(1) //same turf
            return (reachDist >= 0)
        if(2) //might need to check this, but for adjacent getline() probably returns 2
            return A.Adjacent(B)
        if(3 to INFINITY)
            var/turf/S = turfs[1]
            var/turf/E = turfs[2]
            var/distTravelled = 1
            while(S.Adjacent(E) && (distTravelled <= reachDist) && (distTravelled <= turfs.len))
                S = E
                E = turfs[distTravelled+2]
                distTravelled++
            return (E == get_turf(B))
    return FALSE

...
if(CheckReach(src, A, W.reach))
    ...

Not tested, but that should be p.solid, it's basically:
List(AT, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, BT)
AT.Adj(2) -> 2.Adj(3) -> 3.Adj(4) -> 4.Adj(5) -> 5.Adj(6)... BT-1.Adj(BT)

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:43:21Z

Sounds good to me. Any way to check if a dense object actually blocks an attack, I.e. a table won't but a window can?

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:43:59Z

@Xhuis Adjacent() calls ClickCross(target_dir, border_only, target_atom = null), which checks the turf for dense objects and things.

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:44:56Z

Well, that solves a lot. Adjacent it is!

RemieRichards · 2017-02-24T13:46:12Z

@Xhuis you mean CheckReach() yeah? :^) (since its actual main check-y part is itself just an Adjacent() call)

ghost · 2017-02-24T13:48:41Z

you know that that's what I meant >:(

imtakingabreakdontatme · 2017-02-25T23:54:13Z

I dont think there is any good way to communicate reach weapons visually

Or to even balance them for that matter

PKPenguin321 · 2017-02-25T23:55:45Z

They would probably need large inhands (which I think we support, remie added it I think?) and to draw a beam from attacker to victim. They could definitely be balanced by making different hit effects depending on how far away you hit a target from. Check the thread on the forums

ghost · 2017-02-27T15:37:11Z

Just a small update so you know that I haven't abandoned this and close-happy maintainers don't shut it down for being stale. I haven't worked much in this, as I'm still not sure if the niche cases that this will apply to is worth checking every attack for. I also still don't know how to check if something should block an attack. Density and opacity, the two variables I could use, both don't make sense, and I don't know if adding an obstruction variable to every atom would be wise.

ghost · 2017-02-27T16:35:59Z

Can anyone think of some cases where this framework might actually be used? Spears are all that I can think of, making me apprehensive about even coding this further.

Militaires · 2017-02-27T17:53:35Z

long dongs that reach across zlevels when

PKPenguin321 · 2017-02-27T18:23:47Z

Xhuis, go check the forum thread again

GIVE librarian whip

ghost · 2017-03-01T23:10:11Z

Doing some more work on this today. I can't go with @RemieRichards' proc as-is, because it doesn't account for dense objects that might also logically allow an attack to go past them (such as a rack or a table). To resolve this, I'm adding a new var to /atom, obstructs, to check if it blocks attacks like that. Each turf checked by CheckReach will have objects in them checked for obstructs.

If you know a better way for this, I'd be happy to take it.

ChangelingRain · 2017-03-01T23:13:20Z

honestly just make reach weapons.... basically guns, except with instant projectiles and a longer attack cooldown

ghost · 2017-03-01T23:14:06Z

That's... an odd way of doing it, but not a bad one either. Projectiles already check this kind of thing, too, so I suppose I could refer to their code for a more efficient way of doing this.

ghost · 2017-03-03T17:48:12Z

The argument I'm currently having with Remie reminded me of this, so I'll continue on it once I get home.

ghost · 2017-03-03T23:55:51Z

All right, done! I added proper checking through dense objects. The method I ended up using was what @ChangelingRain recommended; I used an invisible dummy object that moved from turf to turf, checking if it could pass by. The attacks pass over the same things that projectiles do.

PKPenguin321 · 2017-03-03T23:57:38Z

Did you ever do this

Oh this will need support for recognizing the distance hit from so we can have different effects for hits at different ranges

I cant tell if your code does that

ghost · 2017-03-03T23:58:23Z

No, but it's very easy to implement with a quick get_dist(here, there) check. You'd need to modify weapon code, too.

ghost · 2017-03-04T21:29:06Z

This should be ready.

ChangelingRain · 2017-03-05T17:00:28Z

code/_onclick/click.dm

+					return 1
+				if(!dummy.Move(T)) //we're blocked!
+					return
+			return


aaaaaaaa training return

ChangelingRain · 2017-03-05T17:01:06Z

code/_onclick/click.dm

+		if(2 to INFINITY)
+			var/obj/dummy = new(get_turf(here)) //We'll try to move this every tick, failing if we can't
+			dummy.pass_flags |= PASSTABLE
+			QDEL_IN(dummy, 10) //1-second grace period for calculation


just qdel it after the loop, no need to keep it around

PKPenguin321 · 2017-03-12T00:32:56Z

yes

Adds support for weapons with reach

4a0338a

lzimann added the Feature Exposes new bugs in interesting ways label Feb 24, 2017

RandomMarine reviewed Feb 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

optimumtact added the Stale Even the uncaring universe rejects you, why even go on label Mar 2, 2017

ghost mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2017

[s] Makes peacekeeper cyborgs into "security" cyborgs on April Fools' Day #24634

Closed

Xhuis added 2 commits March 3, 2017 18:53

Fixes reach functionality

f657d15

Deletes the dummy object once it's done

5c22851

Removes debug code

bd751a3

ChangelingRain reviewed Mar 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

code/_onclick/click.dm Outdated

return 1

if(!dummy.Move(T)) //we're blocked!

return

return

Copy link

Contributor

ChangelingRain Mar 5, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

aaaaaaaa training return

ChangelingRain reviewed Mar 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

doot doot

1da73b1

optimumtact added Ready for Review and removed Stale Even the uncaring universe rejects you, why even go on labels Mar 7, 2017

optimumtact closed this Mar 11, 2017

optimumtact merged commit 7db2a60 into tgstation:master Mar 11, 2017

ghost deleted the deus_vult branch March 11, 2017 05:09

Adds support for weapons with reach #24395

Adds support for weapons with reach #24395

Conversation

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

ChangelingRain commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

PKPenguin321 commented Feb 24, 2017

PKPenguin321 commented Feb 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RemieRichards Feb 24, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RemieRichards Feb 24, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017

FantasticFwoosh commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017 • edited

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017 • edited

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017

ghost commented Feb 24, 2017

imtakingabreakdontatme commented Feb 25, 2017

PKPenguin321 commented Feb 25, 2017

ghost commented Feb 27, 2017

ghost commented Feb 27, 2017

Militaires commented Feb 27, 2017

PKPenguin321 commented Feb 27, 2017

ghost commented Mar 1, 2017

ChangelingRain commented Mar 1, 2017

ghost commented Mar 1, 2017

ghost commented Mar 3, 2017

ghost commented Mar 3, 2017

PKPenguin321 commented Mar 3, 2017 • edited

ghost commented Mar 3, 2017

ghost commented Mar 4, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PKPenguin321 commented Mar 12, 2017

RemieRichards Feb 24, 2017 •

edited

RemieRichards Feb 24, 2017 •

edited

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017 •

edited

RemieRichards commented Feb 24, 2017 •

edited

PKPenguin321 commented Mar 3, 2017 •

edited