What discourages new players

[MaxPlanck]

"We like it this way." Is that a 'justifiable' argument?

All hitboxes are rectangles.

The struggles of placing any structure at an angle near other things is a prime example of the rectangular system. I don't really have a problem with that though,

[Chrumps]

Yeah, because stumbling over invisible rectangles feels so natural.

Can we have one of these two things:
- circular hitboxes for things like stumps and tanning tubs
- hitboxes made of two or more overlapping rectangles to better approximate the visual shape and make corners stick less out of it.

[pietrko]

Firstly, let me just throw out some anecdotes : I don't remember a moment in my life where I just decided to run into a wall at an angle, and just kind of grind my face nice and good against it for the remainder of its length until whatever wall it was ended. Secondly, I never (so far, who knows in my old age) seem to clip objects and just pin-ball off them or .. again, grind my face against them until I pass them.

I had a vision of exactly this happening in real life when I read the comment about movement being 'not physical' in the game. I think the game's movement physics are actually pretty realistic in that if you run into something irl, you're generally going to stop cold. Or maybe bounce off and stumble, maybe we should add that to the game.

It is unphysical - should i explain?
In simple model collision with a wall and human body (at angle) is non-elastic (this is direct translaiton of polish word, the meaning is that the energy isn't conserverd in collision and some kinetic energy is wasted and transferred into heat and you don't bounce off).

So given that non-elastic collision your velocity:
- in direction normal to the surface of the wall would be 0 - so you woudld be stopped (but only in one direction)
- tangent direction: same as before but after that probably fading beacuse of friction with wall.

So before collision your velocity ( V_N - velocity compnent normal to the wall, V_T -tangent )
V_before = V_N + V_T
immidiately after
V_after = V_T, while later V_T fading due to friction.

In real life situation, since human is soft body and not a material point so there would be also some rotatation.... ehh well you can try it yourself

Actually depening on what you wear (how elastic colliding body is) bouncing is also possible in extreme case (perfectly elastic):
V_after = -V_N + V_T

there is no physical scenario during which:
(assuming: V_T != 0)

V_before = V_N + V_T
V_after = 0
Which is game behaviour.

But you devs are ok with movement so this is end of story.
Just don't say that it is pretty physical beacuse it is not - I didn't lie or made up this argument.
Of course I just gave simple model.

[Dallane]

[lachlaan]

It amuses me that you are legitimately suggesting that we be allowed to slam our faces into a wall at an angle, stick to the wall since the vector perpendicular to the wall would not be 0 realistically, then after sticking to it, let friction slow us down and quite possibly let our bodies rotate around the friction contact point as our inertia parallel to the wall keeps us going. But indeed, end of the topic i guess xD

[pietrko]

Damn,
i wasn't suggesting full rigid body mechanics with rotation.
Just saving the value of tangent component of the velocity.

EDIT: Anyway glad we all had fun.

[lachlaan]

The issue with that suggestion is that Salem lacks momentum, or velocity, or friction. It has base speed, speed modifiers and obstruction via hitboxes.

[jophbot]

yeah there is just about everything else that would rank higher in my priority list than recoding the physics of motion and collision if I was a dev here ...

[Taipion]

"We like it this way." Is that a 'justifiable' argument?

In many cases it is, but here it is just a confession of badly made implementation.

[Dallane]

"We like it this way." Is that a 'justifiable' argument?

In many cases it is, but here it is just a confession of badly made implementation.

Your terrible opinion