|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0002005||OpenClonk||Objects||public||2018-03-11 01:30||2018-03-13 21:53|
|Product Version||git master|
|Target Version||git master||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0002005: Ranged weapons have no max contents count|
|Description||You 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).
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|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.|
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.
|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.|
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.
>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).
|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|