Timeline for Doing powerups in a component-based system
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2014 at 6:37 | vote | accept | deft_code | ||
| Jul 29, 2011 at 15:04 | comment | added | raine | anonymous downvoter hit again :( | |
| Jun 28, 2011 at 14:28 | comment | added | raine | @deft_code, please let me know if I can improve my answer. | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 17:32 | comment | added | raine | @Nick, the majority of entity systems have both logical and graphics-related components alike, so, in this case, having an entity for a shield is absolutely reasonable. In purely logical entity systems, "autonomy" is the product of how complex an object is, its dependencies and lifetime. In the end, requirement is king - and considering that there's no real consensus about what an entity system is, there's plenty of room for project-tailored solutions :) | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 16:04 | comment | added | Engineer | Your autonomy point makes good sense. But you note: "in this case we're dealing with behaviour". True -- behaviour involving an entirely separate physical object (the shield collision shape). For me, one entity ties to one physics body (or compound set of bodies connected eg. by joints). How do you reconcile this? For my part, I would feel uncomfortable adding a "dummy" physical fixture which would activate only if the player happens to use a shield. IMO inflexible, hard to maintain across all entities. Consider too, a game where shield belts keep shields on even after death (Dune). | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 15:29 | history | edited | raine | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 503 characters in body |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 15:22 | comment | added | raine | @Nick, I am by no means trying to teach anything to anyone, rather sharing what I know on the subject. I am however going to add a rationale behind that "no" that hopefully will remove that unpleasant downvote :( | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 14:29 | comment | added | Engineer | You've replied "No" to the first question without giving any reason. Teaching others is about helping them to understand the reasoning behind any decision. IMO, the fact that in RL a force field would be a separate "physical entity" from your own body is enough to let it be a separate entity in code. Can you suggest good reasons to suggest why going this route is bad? | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 7:17 | history | edited | raine | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 329 characters in body |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 7:11 | history | answered | raine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |