1 (edited by Zortarg Calltar 2013-06-03 18:31:57)

Topic: Stucture placement bug

we have been doing some testing with some structures and have found that the placement check only affects the tile in the center. the other occupied tiles are not of any intrest. so with this you can place a turret partial in a wall so the terrain will be unterraformable because its too close at the building. this was not possible a while back. there the whole area the building was standing on + at least one tile inbetween had to be flat enough.

distance check to near buildings seams to work fine.

i dont know how long this is in then i havent build that much in the last months.


dont tell me its a feature ...

these pics should show it quite well.
http://up.picr.de/14719167ye.jpg
http://up.picr.de/14719216px.jpg
http://up.picr.de/14719228og.png
http://up.picr.de/14719234jn.jpg

i think jita has also used this at his bases.

p.s.: i would like to have a small talk about another feature in buildings that i want to keep private for now. so if you might have a few mins somewhere (irc, ingame or voicecom) then i would be gratefull.

2 (edited by Ville 2013-06-03 19:45:36)

Re: Stucture placement bug

This has been like this since bergers was built, the whole purpose for ewar so close to a wall is to prevent from terraforming in.  I have A whole section of 90 turrets like this.

Edited: clarification of day my day one.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Stucture placement bug

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … gs/page/2/

Pretty sure this is where the "problem" started.

Reminds me of the old saying: "Be careful of what you wish for." big_smile

I think Zortarg was for the change of the original mechanic so pls disregard.

4 (edited by Xadhoom 2013-06-04 02:47:43)

Re: Stucture placement bug

Ville wrote:

This has been like this since bergers was built, the whole purpose for ewar so close to a wall is to prevent from terraforming in.  I have A whole section of 90 turrets like this.

Edited: clarification of day my day one.


Thais truly makes me happy ville

2nd Top Killer 2012
02: 061 -- 353 -- 292 : Xadhoom


"Annihilator no fix for crashes when fighting burial/merkle/xadhoom ?"

Re: Stucture placement bug

Aye Pod wrote:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … gs/page/2/

Pretty sure this is where the "problem" started.

Reminds me of the old saying: "Be careful of what you wish for." big_smile

I think Zortarg was for the change of the original mechanic so pls disregard.

your link was a problem that placing buildings was changing the terrain.

this problem is that buildings can be placed on terrain where they should not be able to.

2 different things. roll

6 (edited by Fourfingers Frankie 2013-06-04 11:02:53)

Re: Stucture placement bug

Confirming what *** said. My base's walls are built using this meaning you can't terraform in.

I've talked in general chat about this a while. Using this 'feature' its possible to build an island that's impossible to assault. Not just difficult - impossible.

Broken mechanics.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Didn't we talk about (purpose-built) turret ammunition a while back? Wouldn't hurt to offset 'features' like these.

8 (edited by Ludlow Bursar 2013-06-04 15:20:01)

Re: Stucture placement bug

Zortarg Calltar wrote:

... the placement check only affects the tile in the center.

It has been like this since inception.

Placement check for impassable building slope capability only looks at the footprint. [EDIT]

Placement check on adjacent buildings looks at the occupied area which is NOT the same as tiles. In your third image (taken from colony management) 'occupied area' is not switched on. When switched on a magenta circle will surround the structure on the plan. It is these circles that are not allowed to intersect when placing buildings NOT tiles. You may have to zoom right in to check when placing buildings really close together.

If you want to maximise un-terraformable area due to 'occupied area' terraforming restrictions take a look at using staggered mining towers. They are without question the best structure for the task.

9 (edited by Zortarg Calltar 2013-06-04 16:53:47)

Re: Stucture placement bug

ludlow, i dont want to use it. i think its a bug or a bad mechanic and should be removed...

Re: Stucture placement bug

Zortarg Calltar wrote:

ludlow, i dont want to use it. i think its a bug or a bad mechanic and should be removed...

posting in a 'nerf jita's base' thread.

11 (edited by Ville 2013-06-04 22:03:24)

Re: Stucture placement bug

Xadhoom wrote:
Ville wrote:

This has been like this since bergers was built, the whole purpose for ewar so close to a wall is to prevent from terraforming in.  I have A whole section of 90 turrets like this.

Edited: clarification of day my day one.


Thais truly makes me happy ville

I thought that was coloring books and a spiny hat?  My bad.

Edited:  the reason why what you've done is a bad idea that way is because sometimes there's a glitch that will let you shoot through 1-2 tile wide walls.  I found its not possible if you do a 5-8 tile wide wall.  I know when STC attacked me we had some mysterious dead turrets behind a wall.  Just like the top of some walls are shoot able by players but not by turrets.  It's been a while though.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

12 (edited by Zortarg Calltar 2013-06-04 22:26:21)

Re: Stucture placement bug

jita its not about your base. im pretty sure we could destroy that if we put a bit effort into it. even with the few ppl active atm.
but to be honest we couldnt care less about your bases. and if you would think about game mechanics and how the game should function then you would see that. but we had that before. yea and with that we are back at terraforming and a few other gamma "problems"

as usual you sould point at a problem before it gets out of hand. well maybe its too late for that one ^^

Re: Stucture placement bug

Zortarg Calltar wrote:

jita its not about your base. im pretty sure we could destroy that if we put a bit effort into it. even with the few ppl active atm.
but to be honest we couldnt care less about your bases. and if you would think about game mechanics and how the game should function then you would see that. but we had that before. yea and with that we are back at terraforming and a few other gamma "problems"

as usual you sould point at a problem before it gets out of hand. well maybe its too late for that one ^^

Jita it is not about your base!!  Even though I clearly referenced it in my original post!  Lol thanks for the laugh Zortarg.  Sounds like you want easy mode Zortarg, if its defended you couldn't be bothered.  Oh well, Jita looks like you've won perpetuum.  STC's pet corp couldn't be bothered to attack you.  Hahaha.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Lately, to whichever forum section threads are posted, they always seem to end up sounding like they should be in CD.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Lately, to whichever forum section threads are posted, they always seem to end up sounding like they should be in CD.


What else we going to do its not like we can pvp in game, without saying "hey look at me I'm here" in general chat.  And I've been out and about this week.  I waited 27 mins by a sap the other night with a detecting castle under the station, nothing...  The lazy bastards didn't even get the SAP loot.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Apparently I have to agree with Zortarg, bad game mechanics should be discussed and corrected. Regardless of how many times it was used in the past, it should be as soons as possible changed in a way that fits to the intention of base design.

It should not be possible to build mining towers to defend a base, as they are not intended to do so. As long as all other game mechanic work as intended, 90 ewar turrets should not prevent terraforming because they block the tile, they should prevent terraforming until enemy fields a a real huge fleet of terraformer due to ewar mechanic.

17

Re: Stucture placement bug

It all has to do with base design ...

the more you force cookie cutter base design / mechanics the less sandbox the game becomes

enough said.

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Tux wrote:

It all has to do with base design ...

the more you force cookie cutter base design / mechanics the less sandbox the game becomes

enough said.

+1

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Stucture placement bug

Has this changed now?

Re: Stucture placement bug

Fixed. Note however that turrets have a larger "occupied area limit" (what you see in the planner, and which limits placement near other buildings, 5x5 tiles) than their "floorspace radius" (~blocking, which is 3x3 tiles).

Re: Stucture placement bug

DEV Zoom wrote:

"occupied area limit" (what you see in the planner, and which limits placement near other buildings, 5x5 tiles)

Hang on, if "occupied area" limits building placement then what is the "construction radius"? Are you sure you've phrased the above correctly?

Re: Stucture placement bug

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Hang on, if "occupied area" limits building placement then what is the "construction radius"? Are you sure you've phrased the above correctly?

I took the phrases from the item information windows, occupied area is basically construction radius. Then there is connection radius, but that is used when connecting buildings to each other.

Re: Stucture placement bug

DEV Zoom wrote:

occupied area is basically construction radius.

Basically? What do you mean by basically? Because "occupied area" and "construction radius" are not the same thing.

Re: Stucture placement bug

I say basically because a radius can't be properly translated into occupied tiles due to the very low resolution.

Re: Stucture placement bug

DEV Zoom wrote:

I say basically because a radius can't be properly translated into occupied tiles due to the very low resolution.

And therein lies a crucial difference which means that there must always be a 1 tile gap which is not "occupied area" between adjacent structures with the exception of certain structures when placed diagonally adjacent.

This means that your note in post #22 re turrets having a larger occupied area than is shown on Colony Planner actually applies to all structures, does it not? Or are turrets special in some way?

Sorry to seem unnecessarily pedantic about this but we did recently have a 6 page thread that seemed to centre around a mis-understanding of this issue and I think it would be helpful to nail it down.