flux reports: new feature request: shared ar ...
#374
Open
opened 2 years ago by yourland-report
·
7 comments
Labels
Clear labels
Depends on balancing
something that alters or disables an existing game mechanic
Something is not working
A build needs fixing
Needs proper documentation
New feature
players despoiling builds or nature
Not a valid report, e.g. created by mistake with no content.
issue is mostly a joke
something which works for or against the node limit
Something not within the other kinds
something concerning how staff should react to player requests, or how players should treat each other
not likely to happen w/out a lot of discussion
Very important
something players are eager to have fixed
the resolution to this is could be done by a new minetest contributor, who doesn't yet understand the mod ecosystem
one of us has real interest in getting this implemented or fixed. however, more research might be needed.
Not so important
art needs to be created or found for this to exist. includes sound, 3d modelling, and in-game building.
Issue is with the minetest client, or with player client configuration or the technical details of their setup
Issue is due to a bug or feature of the minetest engine
Problem and solution exist in-game, e.g. builds or player moderation
Two or more nonbuggy mechanics conflict
A problem which is caused or made worse by lag, due to server processing issues, client processing issues, or network issues
Problem is upstream (not engine/client)
Affects the website
Alias has approved this feature, someone should implement it
Being worked on
we plan to do this, but other work has to be finished first
issue is under discussion, a solution has not been dictated or agreed upon
Need some help
this is mitigated or partially solved, but more work needs to be done
More information is needed
has been QA tested by another person. has no outstanding issues. might be installed on prod, but needs final testing
the code is supposedly fixed, but needs to be tested.
Someone can quickly implement this if Alias approves the change/feature
This issue or pull request already exists
problem is fixed
not planned currently, but maybe some day
the reported issue won't be changed, whether it's intentional or not.
yet another petz bugz.
That's something we can only wait and see whether it hapens again: On the main server
Fix didn't yield the expected results
tested
Apply labels
1. kind/balancing
Depends on balancing
1. kind/breaking
something that alters or disables an existing game mechanic
1. kind/bug
Something is not working
1. kind/construction
A build needs fixing
1. kind/documentation
Needs proper documentation
1. kind/enhancement
New feature
1. kind/griefing
players despoiling builds or nature
1. kind/invalid
Not a valid report, e.g. created by mistake with no content.
1. kind/meme
issue is mostly a joke
1. kind/node limit
something which works for or against the node limit
1. kind/other
Something not within the other kinds
1. kind/protocol
something concerning how staff should react to player requests, or how players should treat each other
2. prio/controversial
not likely to happen w/out a lot of discussion
2. prio/critical
Very important
2. prio/elevated
something players are eager to have fixed
2. prio/good first issue
the resolution to this is could be done by a new minetest contributor, who doesn't yet understand the mod ecosystem
2. prio/interesting
one of us has real interest in getting this implemented or fixed. however, more research might be needed.
2. prio/low
Not so important
3. source/art
art needs to be created or found for this to exist. includes sound, 3d modelling, and in-game building.
3. source/client
Issue is with the minetest client, or with player client configuration or the technical details of their setup
3. source/engine
Issue is due to a bug or feature of the minetest engine
3. source/ingame
Problem and solution exist in-game, e.g. builds or player moderation
3. source/integration
Two or more nonbuggy mechanics conflict
3. source/lag
A problem which is caused or made worse by lag, due to server processing issues, client processing issues, or network issues
3. source/mod upstream
Problem is upstream (not engine/client)
3. source/unknown
3. source/website
Affects the website
4. step/approved
Alias has approved this feature, someone should implement it
4. step/at work
Being worked on
4. step/blocked
we plan to do this, but other work has to be finished first
4. step/discussion
issue is under discussion, a solution has not been dictated or agreed upon
4. step/help wanted
Need some help
4. step/needs confirmation
4. step/partially fixed
this is mitigated or partially solved, but more work needs to be done
4. step/question
More information is needed
4. step/ready to deploy
has been QA tested by another person. has no outstanding issues. might be installed on prod, but needs final testing
4. step/ready to QA test
the code is supposedly fixed, but needs to be tested.
4. step/want approval
Someone can quickly implement this if Alias approves the change/feature
5. result/cannot reproduce
5. result/duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
5. result/fixed
problem is fixed
5. result/maybe
not planned currently, but maybe some day
5. result/wontfix
the reported issue won't be changed, whether it's intentional or not.
ugh/petz
yet another petz bugz.
ugh/QA main
That's something we can only wait and see whether it hapens again: On the main server
ugh/QA NOK
Fix didn't yield the expected results
ugh/QA OK
tested
No Label
1. kind/balancing
1. kind/breaking
1. kind/bug
1. kind/construction
1. kind/documentation
1. kind/enhancement
1. kind/griefing
1. kind/invalid
1. kind/meme
1. kind/node limit
1. kind/other
1. kind/protocol
2. prio/controversial
2. prio/critical
2. prio/elevated
2. prio/good first issue
2. prio/interesting
2. prio/low
3. source/art
3. source/client
3. source/engine
3. source/ingame
3. source/integration
3. source/lag
3. source/mod upstream
3. source/unknown
3. source/website
4. step/approved
4. step/at work
4. step/blocked
4. step/discussion
4. step/help wanted
4. step/needs confirmation
4. step/partially fixed
4. step/question
4. step/ready to deploy
4. step/ready to QA test
4. step/want approval
5. result/cannot reproduce
5. result/duplicate
5. result/fixed
5. result/maybe
5. result/wontfix
ugh/petz
ugh/QA main
ugh/QA NOK
ugh/QA OK
Milestone
Set milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Set Project
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Assign users
Clear assignees
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: your-land/bugtracker#374
Reference in New Issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch '%!s(<nil>)'
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?
No
Yes
flux reports a bug:
Player position:
Player look:
Player information:
Player meta:
Log identifier
Profiler save:
Status:
Im Not 100% Sure but i think Just people added To an area can Open an normal Armor stand which makes it Kind of an shared one
Just tested this, and the unlocked armor stand is 100% usable by anyone.
Having a "protected" armor stand would benefit defenders of a town, they could have some ready armor and whoever is online at the time could take and go fight, then return afterwards.
Will implement.
i could easily add such a thing in yl_commons (or whereever)
That's something 3d_armor in general might benefit from, if the project wasn't stale, I'd probably recommend PR there. What's your opinion?
Regarding armour stands: Not a big fan, they look somewhat aged and don't have a place for the shield, let alone a weapon. Maybe we could abuse NPCs as armor stands. What's @Sokomine 's opinion on that?
i got maybe 50% done in a rewrite of 3d_armor, but stopped to deal w/ more important things. a shared armour stand, and the ability to put shields & other armor on them, was part of that work. another big part of the work was to make it easier to define the behavior when the player experiences various kinds of damage.
The version of 3darmor that I have (slightly outdated perhaps?) already uses an entity that wears the armor stand texture when "empty" and the textures of the armor put on top. So it's already that way.
The model used doesn't seem to support wepaons or shields. It looks like this (made visible by using default_wood.png as "empty" texture. Er. Hope it got added somewhere here.
Changing the model so that it displays the other things requires someone with skill in changing 3d models. It differs a bit from the player model insofar as the arms are not hanging down but are angled a bit. And this is IMHO pretty nice.
A shared version would be very good and ought to be doable with far less work than changing a model (at least from my point of view).
In the long run, clothing would be very nice for NPC to have. Like complex crafted food, clothing could be something that makes NPC happy and more loyal. Players have skins and armor and thus no use or place for it. But NPC do...