Anonymous Login
2018-12-16 03:28 UTC

View Issue Details Jump to Notes ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0002005OpenClonkObjectspublic2018-03-13 21:53
ReporterClonkonaut 
Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeveritytrivialReproducibilityalways
StatusnewResolutionopen 
PlatformPCOSWindowsOS Version10
Product Versiongit master 
Target Versiongit masterFixed in Version 
Summary0002005: Ranged weapons have no max contents count
DescriptionYou can load up whatever amount of ammunition that you want into a bow or a blunderbuss. It won't go in there automatically, but using the interaction menu, it's easy to stuff more stuff in.
I don't think that's really intended?

Also, since all the contents add their weight to the weapon, with enough bullets/arrows you can create a one-hit kill weapon (if thrown).
TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

-Relationships
+Relationships

-Notes

~0006150

Maikel (developer)

True, what change even caused this? Is it for all objects with an extra slot? We should either go back to the default of one object or make some sensible limits.

~0006151

Clonkonaut (developer)

I suspect there was no change. In the past, before the new menu, it simply wasn't possible to access these object as containers, so they were self regulating.
It is true for all extra slot objects that do not limit the object intake in any way. Maybe max contents of 1 is a sensible default.

~0006153

Maikel (developer)

Yes, that would be the easiest solution. I don't see what weapon currently needs more. Although I liked the convenience of carrying loads of arrows, I did not like that you could not see easily what is carried by the bow. Moreover carrying so many arrows is annoying if multiple players access a chest in a melee and the first player takes all the arrows.

~0006154

Marky (developer)

I'd like to add to this, that the object interaction menu has two methods for transferring objects from one container to another (one for simple click on an object, the other for transferring all items) - in the sense that both allow transferring an array of objects, but use a different logic.
A while ago I made a unit test that currently fails (not finished, really), and tests both methods. We should reduce this to one method only, preferrable having the target container 'collect' each object in the array individually, instead of doing some logic beforehand. Might be related to this bug.

~0006155

Zapper (developer)

>We should reduce this to one method only, preferrable having the target container 'collect' each object in the array individually, instead of doing some logic beforehand. Might be related to this bug.

I strongly believe that both methods correctly respect RejectCollect, the maximum stack size, and the maximum contents count.
If anyone is to change that code, please make sure that you test all the edge cases (e.g. stacking stacks of infinite arrows etc.). Because I strongly doubt that I wrote it like that for fun.

Instead of limiting the object count inside a bow, it could limit the number of stacked objects (so it could e.g. carry either 30 bomb arrows or 30 normal arrows even if bomb arrows were produced in stacks of 10).
+Notes

-Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2018-03-11 01:30 Clonkonaut New Issue
2018-03-11 01:31 Clonkonaut Description Updated View Revisions
2018-03-11 07:36 Maikel Note Added: 0006150
2018-03-11 11:19 Clonkonaut Note Added: 0006151
2018-03-12 17:28 Maikel Note Added: 0006153
2018-03-12 18:25 Marky Note Added: 0006154
2018-03-13 21:53 Zapper Note Added: 0006155
+Issue History