Tree Collision, really?

[rixk 830]

+1 for tree collision

[Reylaark 1,100]

3 hours ago, Aeris said:

 

The "safety part" had nothing to do with the tree collision, it was in reference to walls being compared to tree collisions in an absurd argumentation technique. The walls are what bring safety, the tree collision staying out of the game was a QoL request in my post. And ease up on the whole "some folks" mentality when you're off arguing about the wrong thing.

 

Edit: Not intended as an abrasive comment by the way, but the whole comparing apples to oranges thing is getting a bit ridiculous even without anyone getting the two confused.

Actually had occured to me you were talking about the walls, but I dismissed that as utterly asinine as walls are solid not for safety, but because walls are solid.

 

Yes, I used some folks in two sentences in a row.  My editor is on vacation this week.  By saying some folks, I was attempting to respect the fact that other folks do not agree with my opinion, such as yourself.  Aside from the literary faux-pas, not sure how you managed to have a problem with that.

 

Oranges were an addition to the game.  Ghostly trees were not.

 

As for QoL, I have a hard time taking that seriously because some folks there are quite a number of Wurmians throwing that around far too freely.  Removing components of a game one finds frustrating does not automatically qualify as QoL.

 

There are times when it is annoying.  I have not forgotten that.  It would be great if collision boxes could account for age, and particularly animals vs tree collision.  Might be a problem for animal dispersal, dunno.

 

I do think that a local telling a traveler to avoid a certain direction on account of the chestnut forest is ok.  Mark the appropriate maps.

I think people tending to local forests making them easier to pass is ok.

Also think certain parts of a map known to be a nightmare is ok.  There's roads, gravel paths, lawn trails, options.

 

[Wilczan 2,048]

Wurm is about survival in open world. Tree collision and players forced to build roads or chop through dense woods are part of it. Also players who need to learn of terrain, to know where they can pass and where they will stuck.

 

No more autopilot ride/chase/run through the woods.

 

Ofc buggy large trees have to be fixed.

[Aeris 3,752]

9 hours ago, Reylaark said:

 Aside from the literary faux-pas, not sure how you managed to have a problem with that.

 

 

Fair enough, I just had a problem with it on the basis that it looked like a sweeping generalization argument in response to something I hadn't said. Wasn't meant to poke fun at your typing at all and I'm sorry if it came across as that.

[Finnn 3,303]

For a long while.. that was removed from the game and people got used to it.. I never saw anyone(other than climbers..) to ask for this to return. Speaks alone about how useful or longed feature was to be stuck to a tree.. while mobs run trough them like they are not there.

Obviously players are going to get used to it.. but it doesn't in any way mean that it's needed if it only brings grief and nothing else.

Realism is overrated.

 

[Darmalus 631]

My main thought are that if a tree completely or mostly blocks the tile it is on, it should kill/clear the 8 adjacent tiles around it, oak style.

 

Also, olive trees should have their graphic trimmed down to fruit-tree or birch size.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Darmalus

[zigozag 918]

1 hour ago, Wilczan said:

Wurm is about survival in open world.

I disagree. Maybe in the first month of playing, but after that - no.

[Saroman 1,341]

Not much of an issue to reduce the diameter of some of the worst offenders, so everyone could be happy hopefully.

[Darkshade 6]

I'm pretty sure staff members has mentioned several times in other threads that they will do something about the big trees before collision comes back to live servers. I see now they mentioned it in this thread also

[Amadee 1,543]

10 hours ago, Saroman said:

Not much of an issue to reduce the diameter of some of the worst offenders, so everyone could be happy hopefully.

 

Are you also planning on having the collision affect the mobs as well as the players?  If the mobs can still run through the forest in a straight line and attack through the trees from 2 tiles away, while we have to run a zig-zag obstacle course, I think there's going to be a whole lot of really chapped people.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Amadee

[Ayes 3,715]

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 11:22 AM, Aaron_IRL said:

Tree collision is annoying, unnecessary, unwanted, and loathsome.  Just some of the adjectives that popped into my head first that can be used here without censorship.

 

Unfortunately there is no reasoning with *some* otherwise reasonable people on this issue. Neither is there any justification for its returning when there are so many other objects within the game which when the same "reasoning" applied to them should then also become unable to walk through. Although I object to it as well, tree collision will return as has been stated by several WO staff.

 

Just one of the many annoyances to deal with in the game if one can find more enjoyable prospects to pursue to tip the balance in the positive direction. Hey, I'm feeling tipsy right now (due to game mechanics)!

 

*tips hat*

=Ayes=

Edited June 7, 2017 by Ayes
comma

[Finnn 3,303]

I'll agree there are hundreds of walk-trough objects in the game, trees are just leaving that club

[Ayes 3,715]

22 hours ago, Finnn said:

trees are just leaving that club

 

Trolls have enough clubs so please leaf trees out of it.

 

=Ayes=

[Rhianna 892]

Okay so tree diameter is being fixed possibly , what about animal tree collision? If we have to sidestep trees (or just hack our way through a forest) then animals should have to go around trees as well. It is hard enough for new players as it is without them getting stuck in a wall of trees while animals attack from the other side or catch up cos animals run through the trees.

[zigozag 918]

Of course it should affect mobs too, otherwise it shouldn't even be an option. Who would win the lag battle, servers or pathfinding for mobs?

[Klaa 4,872]

From years of experience, I can tell you it's going to happen. I would strongly advice pushing for tweaks instead of removal. For example, smaller diameters on the worst ones: chestnuts, olives, and etc.

 

Less collision on wide vehicles.

 

Or an enforced radius like with willows and oaks, which helps avoid issues with oaks.

[gooner_ 19]

Sounds like I speak in vain, but:

 

+1 Tree collisions was a pain!

[Saroman 1,341]

[JakeRivers 2,921]

14 minutes ago, Saroman said:

 

Damn looks good

[Erlindur 63]

6 hours ago, Rhianna said:

Okay so tree diameter is being fixed possibly , what about animal tree collision? If we have to sidestep trees (or just hack our way through a forest) then animals should have to go around trees as well. It is hard enough for new players as it is without them getting stuck in a wall of trees while animals attack from the other side or catch up cos animals run through the trees.

IMO, the main problem with animal tree collision is this

 

4 hours ago, zigozag said:

Who would win the lag battle, servers or pathfinding for mobs?

 

You see, player tree collision could be entirely client side. Since the client knows about where trees are, it could handle it entirely on its own. Sure some exchange and checking could be in server side but it would be entirely for security reasons. Animal collision can only be server side and it will have to include path-finding. I would really hate the extra load of running a path finding algorithm for every single mob in xanadu. It will do wonders for our lag

 

Alternative though, you could only go to path finding only when the mob goes into chase (or aggressive) mode. So, all mobs roam through trees all over the server as they do now but as soon as they enter aggressive mode (as in chasing players or entering combat), they will have the same limitations as we have. The server load for only mobs in combat mode would probably be minimal.

 

PS. love this olive tree model.

 

 

[zigozag 918]

33 minutes ago, Saroman said:

 

 

 

[Cecci 1,609]

<3 Saroman

[Reylaark 1,100]

On 6/6/2017 at 0:20 PM, Aeris said:

 

Fair enough, I just had a problem with it on the basis that it looked like a sweeping generalization argument in response to something I hadn't said. Wasn't meant to poke fun at your typing at all and I'm sorry if it came across as that.

Truth be told, I probably shouldn't be posting at 2:35AM   Thanks for the measured response, appreciate it.

 

@SaromanThose new olive trees look great!  Even if tree collision takes a while to come back in, would be great to get the better looking trees!

 

Do wonder if maybe tree collision should be put on the back burner until AI is revisited and improved pathing can be worked out.  The situation @Amadeedescribes would likely be a mind-boggling and frustrating surprise for new players.  Some might laugh it off, I suspect quite a few would quit in frustration.

 

Just a thought.

[Darmalus 631]

Yeah, even with better tree models (Thanks Saroman!) NPC pathing is a major issue. They really need the same line of sight, slope and travel restrictions players have to deal with.

[Joelle 728]

On 6/6/2017 at 2:35 AM, Reylaark said:

As for QoL, I have a hard time taking that seriously because some folks there are quite a number of Wurmians throwing that around far too freely.  Removing components of a game one finds frustrating does not automatically qualify as QoL.

 

This.

The need for purple dragons are the only legitimate QoL issue, and everyone knows it.

 

Regardless, I'm not a super big fan of tree collisions... But it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me to enjoy the game.