[Accepted] Reverting LoS changes

To revert LoS changes in battlegrounds. Yes or no ?

Yes (no casting through obstacles)
47
71%
No (we want to cast through obstacles)
19
29%
 
Total votes: 66

User avatar
majstorfanta
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Dec 2013 18:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#16 » Post by majstorfanta » 21 Jan 2017 11:26

yeah I agree also with gladers compromise, if it is possible to implement like this. It was meant indeed to be targeted at wsg specifically to revert it.
This LoS maybe is somewhat good on tw idk, but it litteraly kills pvp for meele on PW since ranged had upper hand even before LoS fix, so this made meele hilarious in bgs even more so than they were.
Jackofclubs
Aceofhearts
Kynlovesrets

User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#17 » Post by Gnurg » 21 Jan 2017 14:24

Glader wrote:edit: It is possible to have only stumps in WSG regain their previous LoS behavior, even though it would be purposefully non-blizzlike, anyway you'd need to change the serialized Flags for those M2s. You may need to find their name or ID or something. Anyway, if you regenerated the model data that the vmap and mmap generator uses but instead serialize and save those M2s with WMO flags instead of their proper M2 flags they won't allow spell casting through them. Since the majority of the complaint seem to be able WSG stumps maybe that's a decent compromise.
We could use the M2 flags on most of the rocky areas in EotS as well.

Would it be possible to disable it per map? i.e. Warsong Gulch and Eye of the Storm? I recall someone mentioned it was applied to solve the fence in Arathi Basin, so it wouldn't be needed for those two maps?
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

User avatar
SomethingWitty
Posts: 138
Joined: 27 Aug 2013 20:25

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#18 » Post by SomethingWitty » 21 Jan 2017 20:03

night wrote:wth.. I have to strongly oppose this. Getting a cast off before getting jumped is a huge caster qol and in some ways viability. Smart melee already know where and how to properly use line of site and I accept those as fair enough. Not to mention simply running through us. No mouse turning in the world will make up for the 50/50 of where their center actually is when you are looking at merged models. But running in circles around that damn tree is insane. It's not like you don't then see where the spell came from either from the bolt flying at you or the tiny bit of logic of "where the fck else would they be". And if you don't see that.. your camera is too close.

Maybe I will jump on True and see what is up, but I really, honestly, do not remember anything op about this from retail.
Sorry i tried to understand the logic behind this but i just can't.
"he cant even base a shit + he is worst pvp player in here and he tells us we are bad in pvp this is nonesense its like Englez will say that virdo is bad in leading raids and in pve and after virdo asks him why he say that and for what reason englez will say 'i dont want to destroy your statements ive been there done that etc' "-Balanced 2015

User avatar
night
Posts: 36
Joined: 25 Sep 2015 21:46

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#19 » Post by night » 22 Jan 2017 02:13

There probably isn't enough there...
This just feels weird to me. But the fact is I haven't done enough PVP on here (only private server I've ever tried) to really have noticed the difference. I gave up on it with so much 2v2 or 3v2 spriest raid geared shit shows that it wasn't worth my time.
But on retail I did non-stop BG's, enough to have Conqueror in vanilla and tons of PVP in LK. I just don't remember it being such a defining thing.

Logically it makes sense, and perhaps I'm just bitter I will miss my once or twice per bg to finish a full cast without getting LoS, run through, interrupted, or out of ranged, but ... I dunno :/. I will bow out of this I guess.

User avatar
Glader
Posts: 33
Joined: 03 May 2016 08:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#20 » Post by Glader » 22 Jan 2017 03:05

Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:edit: It is possible to have only stumps in WSG regain their previous LoS behavior, even though it would be purposefully non-blizzlike, anyway you'd need to change the serialized Flags for those M2s. You may need to find their name or ID or something. Anyway, if you regenerated the model data that the vmap and mmap generator uses but instead serialize and save those M2s with WMO flags instead of their proper M2 flags they won't allow spell casting through them. Since the majority of the complaint seem to be able WSG stumps maybe that's a decent compromise.
We could use the M2 flags on most of the rocky areas in EotS as well.

Would it be possible to disable it per map? i.e. Warsong Gulch and Eye of the Storm? I recall someone mentioned it was applied to solve the fence in Arathi Basin, so it wouldn't be needed for those two maps?
Nope, model data isn't per map. It's extracted by the Trinitycore tools and then loaded by the Vmap/Mmap systems. So specific per-map LoS isn't something that can be implemented without major changes. This is why Dependency Injection is used in business and projects that aren't terrible so that these sorts of requests and changes should be done with minimal effort. Sadly, Trinitycore does not follow SOLID and is not designed in a way I consider to be easily extendable or modifyable in that respect.

It wasn't implemented to only solve a fence issue in AB. This is an issue that affected the entire world. This is a change that Trinitycore has officially merged into the 3.3.5 branch as well

https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityC ... eb26d01a22

Blizzard intended for this behavior. Otherwise they'd have created another model type or made these sorts of things WMOs. Rocks in EOTS are cancer anyway. Blizzard spent millions of dollars in play testing and game design to make these decisions. There is a reason why some objects were made to be cast through and others weren't and their reasoning probably comes down to computational cost for collision and raycasting simulation as well as the fun factor.
40box Multiboxing Stream - https://www.twitch.tv/poe_hellokitty

User avatar
Eronox
MVP
Posts: 2331
Joined: 24 Apr 2016 11:03
Location: in ICC & Healing

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#21 » Post by Eronox » 22 Jan 2017 11:32

Glader wrote: Nope, model data isn't per map. It's extracted by the Trinitycore tools and then loaded by the Vmap/Mmap systems. So specific per-map LoS isn't something that can be implemented without major changes. This is why Dependency Injection is used in business and projects that aren't terrible so that these sorts of requests and changes should be done with minimal effort. Sadly, Trinitycore does not follow SOLID and is not designed in a way I consider to be easily extendable or modifyable in that respect.

It wasn't implemented to only solve a fence issue in AB. This is an issue that affected the entire world. This is a change that Trinitycore has officially merged into the 3.3.5 branch as well

https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityC ... eb26d01a22

Blizzard intended for this behavior. Otherwise they'd have created another model type or made these sorts of things WMOs. Rocks in EOTS are cancer anyway. Blizzard spent millions of dollars in play testing and game design to make these decisions. There is a reason why some objects were made to be cast through and others weren't and their reasoning probably comes down to computational cost for collision and raycasting simulation as well as the fun factor.
Shockingly it's 100% accurate. Hence Nyeriah's concerns of seeing unseen consequences
.

There's things that never will be right I know, and things need changin' everywhere you go.
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

- J.R Cash


User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#22 » Post by Gnurg » 22 Jan 2017 11:47

Glader wrote:
Should Charge, Intercept and similar spells not work through these objects?

Right now I am able to use ranged spells through the tree-stumps, while I am unable to charge to the target on the other side ('Target not in Line of Sight). I thought my character would at least try to run around the tree stump? Awfully fun to be insta-gimped by some fire mage in full PvE without being able to counter play them.

[hide]Shattering Throw through the tree-stump.Image[/hide]
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

User avatar
Glader
Posts: 33
Joined: 03 May 2016 08:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#23 » Post by Glader » 23 Jan 2017 01:46

Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:
Should Charge, Intercept and similar spells not work through these objects?

Right now I am able to use ranged spells through the tree-stumps, while I am unable to charge to the target on the other side ('Target not in Line of Sight). I thought my character would at least try to run around the tree stump? Awfully fun to be insta-gimped by some fire mage in full PvE without being able to counter play them.

[hide]Shattering Throw through the tree-stump.Image[/hide]

Yes, this was intended. Any spell that has a SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE should require full path and not just LoS. Only Legion and WoD had complex pathing behavior like you describe, that I can recall. Right now it's being debated on CMangos but I really don't believe that charge acted in that way in 3.3.5, imo SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE spells are special in that they require full LoS (M2s too). I could find no PvP videos from 3.3.5 that showed charging around objects.

This is the resulting behavior if you do not do a path check first.

[youtube]_i4AqGlTGX0[/youtube]
40box Multiboxing Stream - https://www.twitch.tv/poe_hellokitty

User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#24 » Post by Gnurg » 23 Jan 2017 10:19

Glader wrote:
Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:
Should Charge, Intercept and similar spells not work through these objects?

Right now I am able to use ranged spells through the tree-stumps, while I am unable to charge to the target on the other side ('Target not in Line of Sight). I thought my character would at least try to run around the tree stump? Awfully fun to be insta-gimped by some fire mage in full PvE without being able to counter play them.

[hide]Shattering Throw through the tree-stump.Image[/hide]

Yes, this was intended. Any spell that has a SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE should require full path and not just LoS. Only Legion and WoD had complex pathing behavior like you describe, that I can recall. Right now it's being debated on CMangos but I really don't believe that charge acted in that way in 3.3.5, imo SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE spells are special in that they require full LoS (M2s too). I could find no PvP videos from 3.3.5 that showed charging around objects.

This is the resulting behavior if you do not do a path check first.

[youtube]_i4AqGlTGX0[/youtube]
The video looks right. Just like you charge up the ramp in Blade's Edge using the, you find a path around the object.


What about enabling this per realm? Quite certain most against this come from TrueWoW as PrimalWoW doesn't have PvP. I am certain you can make a config setting the places it doesn't block line of sight anymore.
Last edited by Gnurg on 23 Jan 2017 10:22, edited 1 time in total.
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

User avatar
Glader
Posts: 33
Joined: 03 May 2016 08:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#25 » Post by Glader » 23 Jan 2017 10:22

Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:
Gnurg wrote: Should Charge, Intercept and similar spells not work through these objects?

Right now I am able to use ranged spells through the tree-stumps, while I am unable to charge to the target on the other side ('Target not in Line of Sight). I thought my character would at least try to run around the tree stump? Awfully fun to be insta-gimped by some fire mage in full PvE without being able to counter play them.

[hide]Shattering Throw through the tree-stump.Image[/hide]

Yes, this was intended. Any spell that has a SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE should require full path and not just LoS. Only Legion and WoD had complex pathing behavior like you describe, that I can recall. Right now it's being debated on CMangos but I really don't believe that charge acted in that way in 3.3.5, imo SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE spells are special in that they require full LoS (M2s too). I could find no PvP videos from 3.3.5 that showed charging around objects.

This is the resulting behavior if you do not do a path check first.

[youtube]_i4AqGlTGX0[/youtube]
The video looks right. Just like you charge up the ramp in Blade's Edge using the, you find a path around the object.
Charging up a ramp is different than charging around an object. Can you find any references that show charge will path around things like the stumps in WSG? I could not. That video was only to demostrate what the behaviour would be like without the full LoS check with M2s.
40box Multiboxing Stream - https://www.twitch.tv/poe_hellokitty

User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#26 » Post by Gnurg » 23 Jan 2017 10:24

Glader wrote:
Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:

Yes, this was intended. Any spell that has a SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE should require full path and not just LoS. Only Legion and WoD had complex pathing behavior like you describe, that I can recall. Right now it's being debated on CMangos but I really don't believe that charge acted in that way in 3.3.5, imo SPELL_EFFECT_CHARGE spells are special in that they require full LoS (M2s too). I could find no PvP videos from 3.3.5 that showed charging around objects.

This is the resulting behavior if you do not do a path check first.

[youtube]_i4AqGlTGX0[/youtube]
The video looks right. Just like you charge up the ramp in Blade's Edge using the, you find a path around the object.
Charging up a ramp is different than charging around an object. Can you find any references that show charge will path around things like the stumps in WSG? I could not. That video was only to demostrate what the behaviour would be like without the full LoS check with M2s.
Meh ok, I'll just reroll to a DoTer, I guess.

What about enabling this per realm? Quite certain most against this come from TrueWoW as PrimalWoW doesn't have PvP. I am certain you can make a config setting the places it doesn't block line of sight anymore.
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

User avatar
Glader
Posts: 33
Joined: 03 May 2016 08:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#27 » Post by Glader » 23 Jan 2017 10:32

Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:
Gnurg wrote: The video looks right. Just like you charge up the ramp in Blade's Edge using the, you find a path around the object.
Charging up a ramp is different than charging around an object. Can you find any references that show charge will path around things like the stumps in WSG? I could not. That video was only to demostrate what the behaviour would be like without the full LoS check with M2s.
Meh ok, I'll just reroll to a DoTer, I guess.

What about enabling this per realm? Quite certain most against this come from TrueWoW as PrimalWoW doesn't have PvP. I am certain you can make a config setting the places it doesn't block line of sight anymore.
I can't make those sorts of decisions, you'll have to ask an admin or developer here. I'm just a player who happens to get pissed off when things don't work so I try to fix some stuff sometimes.
40box Multiboxing Stream - https://www.twitch.tv/poe_hellokitty

User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#28 » Post by Gnurg » 23 Jan 2017 11:04

Glader wrote:
Gnurg wrote:
Glader wrote:
Charging up a ramp is different than charging around an object. Can you find any references that show charge will path around things like the stumps in WSG? I could not. That video was only to demostrate what the behaviour would be like without the full LoS check with M2s.
Meh ok, I'll just reroll to a DoTer, I guess.

What about enabling this per realm? Quite certain most against this come from TrueWoW as PrimalWoW doesn't have PvP. I am certain you can make a config setting the places it doesn't block line of sight anymore.
I can't make those sorts of decisions, you'll have to ask an admin or developer here. I'm just a player who happens to get pissed off when things don't work so I try to fix some stuff sometimes.
Fair enough, though as you're familiar with the code, you would know where I'd have to add the extra variable. Whenever or not it should be added can be taken later on, but I do believe it's in the staff interrest to stop TrueWoW's pitchforks. Implementing it on TW wouldn't conflict with your interests either.

I do by the way appreciate the other fixes you've made, especially UBRS one. :) The instance was so dumbed down before.
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

User avatar
majstorfanta
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Dec 2013 18:36

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#29 » Post by majstorfanta » 23 Jan 2017 11:32

This reverting of LoS changes is much more needed on PW than on TW.
Also not one pvper, ranged or meele on pw that I talked to inside bg, said that this was a good change.
Jackofclubs
Aceofhearts
Kynlovesrets

User avatar
Gnurg
Posts: 2420
Joined: 28 Jan 2013 19:38
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Reverting LoS changes

#30 » Post by Gnurg » 23 Jan 2017 12:54

Glader wrote:
Would feeding in ObjectIgnoreFlags::IGNORE_NONE instead of ObjectIgnoreFlags::IGNORE_M2 in the changed functions in Spell.cpp make it like before?
HAI
CAN HAZ STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD, IZ GNURF!"
KTHXBYE

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests