Colliders

[TheOne]

I think it's time to give colliders some consideration.
Hiding behind some obstacle is beneficial in real life, sitting behind a collider is a huge disadvantage in Soldat. You can most easily get naded, you can't shoot properly yourself, and the enemy's bullets are more likely to pierce the collider than yours are.
What's the point behind the bad fire interval when you are shooting from behind a collider?

[TehKAMI]

I believe that those colliders are there more for aesthetics than anything else (They're useful as camouflage, though). Soldat in the first place is all about action and moving around, not cowering behind a crate hoping that the enemy will not wreck you with the next shot or a grenade.

[darDar]

that's rather a map related issue then. sandbags (common collidors) are usually pretty tiny and doe provide very little cover and are more useful for boosting purposes.
You can however, change the size of the colliders to suit your needs.  I didn't notice having a lower fireintervall when shooting from behind a collider but i do know that you'll shoot from above your head; which leads to the answer kind of.
As TehKAMI said though; for most of the default game modes, you wouldn't really use colliders in that way.

[Viral]

The best example here are most of R/S maps, where the "colliders" are just normal polygons, or "only bullet collide" and even tho i haven't played this gamemode often i believe they fulfilled their purpose pretty well. Probably becasue they actually work like we would imagine crates or barrels would work :d Why would you hide behind a box that makes the grenades explode on impact? I think the concept of the collider is misguided at the first place. Luckily they found their use in the fastpace gameplay as DarDar or TehKAMI mentioned C:

[soldat-game]

But this be buged add new polygon (bullet colision) and add parameters, penetration 0-100%, and loss of speed 0-100%, a ricochet let it be random how it happens just in thin normal polygon.

[TheOne]

I accept that polygons can act as a replacement most of the time; yet the functionality that the soldier raises his weapon above the collider implicates that it was meant to be used in this way. I think it'd be good to make the firing of a weapon above colliders less bumpy, because this functionality of raising your weapon is already there yet doesn't work in a useful way.

[soldat-game]

And so none of your changes will not be added love devs ♥♥♥

[BKT]

I think it's time to give colliders some consideration.

 

sitting behind a collider is a huge disadvantage in Soldat.

Though I agree it can be improve, I don't think this is necessary true. It depends largely on the situation and the way player use it.

You can most easily get naded

This is the fault of how stupid nade dealt dmg in this game rather than the fault of the 'box' itself. You could sit in the Killdozer and the nade would still damage you as long as it's near enough.

you can't shoot properly yourself
...
What's the point behind the bad fire interval when you are shooting from behind a collider?

That 'blind shot' animation need some makeover/tweak, I agree, especially when using weapons with fire interval < 11.

and the enemy's bullets are more likely to pierce the collider than yours are.

I can see why you would feel this way, but actually this is not true.

The factor that affect whether the engagement is in your favor when you behind the box (minus the fact that you are more or less static) includes :

- Your weapon
- Your character's animation (this is more important than most people realize...)
- Angle of engagement
- The shape of  the 'box' (which the graphics does NOT accurately represent the true shape of the colider, which sometime are not even there!)
- Your positioning

Believe it or not, but if you know what you are doing, sometime you could actually hit people from behind the 'box' while your enemy have no chance whatsoever of hitting you back! 

[TheOne]

hmm well, from my experience bullets which travel through a collider don't travel much further. I assumed the enemy was some distance away from the collider, in that case his bullets travel far enough to hit me, while my bullets don't have enough speed, after they passed through the collider, to hit him.

[Falcon`]

it's probably your hitboxes being big enough to overlap with considerable part of the collider + shitty collision check code which allowed bullet quite deep into the collider before it got destroyed. Both are bugs, which are being slowly worked on.

[Name]

It's true that some mapmakers do a sloppy job at placing colliders, not bothering to zoom in and not bothering to adjust size for each  different object so that it gets somewhat exact. Ideally you should also be able to place colliders which weren't round.

However I don't think that's the issue TheOne is referring to. What the gostek does to fire above colliders which you hide close behind is to lift the gun slightly and do a short burst. Even if you keep squeezing the trigger it puts the gun away for a while and then it comes back up. I'm kind of used to this personally, at least how it behaves with my usual weapon of choice, but I suppose it doesn't make much sence.

It should be considered in this context that you usually can't stay for long at a collider since the enemies will realise quickly through anticipation that you stay there and even if you move quickly when a grenade is thrown at you the grenade will detonate instantly at the collider giving you little time to run. A function which is important by the way to do nade jumping or boosting.

[Name]

I believe that those colliders are there more for aesthetics than anything else (They're useful as camouflage, though). Soldat in the first place is all about action and moving around, not cowering behind a crate hoping that the enemy will not wreck you with the next shot or a grenade.

Colliders are 100% invisible in game. They tend to be used with some specific sceneries (often looking like boxes) although the habits of placing them vary somewhat between different mapmakers. While the sceneries may contribute in an aesthetic way colliders in themselves have absolutely no aesthetic function. They are only relevant to actual gameplay.

This particular objection by the way is also relevant in the case of polygons since there are different types of them and different levels of opacity (even the corners of a polygon may be vertices of different opacity, making the visuality fade towards one or several points). Sometimes what you see in game and act upon isn't really that same polygon which actually does the difference for gameplay. A mapmaker may place polygons in a way which looks good but does nothing and he or she may also place invisible polygons which have an effect like stopping bullets or even to kill a player who touches it. However if it's done in a bad way players and server owners are likely to choose other maps or to make edits because people in general want reliability.
There are no polygons which perform precisely the same functions as colliders (even if they are set to "collide bullets"). Polygons are basically the triangles which the ground is built up with.