• 11
• 9
• 10
• 9
• 10
• ### Similar Content

• Hi, I've been working on this issue for a while and haven't yet found an answer.
Does anyone know the best way to convert unity's LAT & LONG into a vector 3 position that I could use in a virtual world (if it's even possible).

• I am taking an absolute beginner's game development course and we have just finished game jams in small groups. Our current assignment is to get feedback from people working in any aspect of game development. I would very much appreciate any feedback! The game is up on itchi.io (sound warning) https://wobbegong.itch.io/zombie-shooter It's essentially a very basic PvE.
I also have some things I'm wondering about, but you don't necessarily have to answer these.
1. Do you have any tips on working with physics? My group wrestled a bit with Rigidbody physics not totally working the way we wanted to -- jumping ended up kind of floaty and inclines seem to mess up movement. Alternatively... how can I build terrains with depth that won't result in wonky physics?
2. How can I keep up the level of challenge in an interesting way as the player progresses through the waves?
3. What are some of your personal guidelines for creating title screens?
Thank you very much in advance!

• I'm having a weird issue with detecting a collision. I've tried everything I could find online but nothing seems to work. I have a brick object. It has a 2D Collider attached and I have also attached a 2D Rigidbody on it. I also have an EndScreen 2D Collider. The EndScreen 2D collider is tagged with "EndScreen". I am trying to detect when a brick collides with the end screen collider and simply print "game over" in the console.
This is my current code for this part of the program, it is attached to the bricks:
void OnCollisionEnter (Collision2D collision) { if (collision.gameObject.tag == "EndScreen") { Debug.Log("Game over"); } } Several things have happened depending on the set up. If I have the rigidbody 2D set as static, my ball object can still collide with the bricks, but I get no Log message. If I set it to Kinematic or Dynamic, I get absolutely no interaction between the ball and the bricks, and nothing when the bricks pass through the collider. I have tried to set the collider to a trigger and use OnTriggerEnter2D, no change. I have tried to put the rigidbody on the EndScreen object and tried to set it's body type to all 3 settings, no change. The only thing I can think of that I have not done is put the script on the EndScreen object and switch the tag to the bricks. The reason I have not done this is because I will have several types of bricks, some of which will have different tags.

Please tell me somebody can see what I'm doing wrong here, because I'm losing my mind over something I feel should be ridiculously simple. Thanks.

# Unity RPG item/spell/combat system

This topic is 933 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Im working in the implementation of the combat system for my RPG (made with Unity3d and c#), which depends on the item system, skill system, etc. The idea is to have real time pausable combat, so my initial idea was to have a queue of actions. An action can be a weapon attack or an spell, and can be created by the AI or the player input during combat. But when started to work on the actual implementaiton I thought that perhaps my system was too complex.

Described in pseudocode, it something like this:

On the Update() of each entity (including player)

if queue is not empty

get the first action if cooldown timer expired and it is loopable, else, remove and get next

is it an item action?

if the item is a weapon then get the item dmg properties, the target protect properties and decide if it is a succesful attack, dmg, etc

if the item is something else, decide what to do

is it a spell cast?

then do the spell stuff, etc

set the cooldown timer

The advantage I see: the item class is generic and can contain any item, because it just hold properties, doesnt knows how to actually use the item.

The disadvantage: the same. Also, the gameplay code becomes complex (you have to compare all the item damage types against all the target protection types). The action class is a mess: it must contain all possible combinations of actions: item on actor (like a sword attack), spell on actor, and any other I can figure out later.

Is there any other more optimal solution to this?

##### Share on other sites

I'm the author of a real-time pausable RPG. To answer your basic question, "Do I have to do all that stuff?" Yes, you do. In fact, I think you simplified; for an attack, my code runs three timers. One for a character preparing to attack, but not yet attacking, who should display a fighting animation. Second, when the character actually is attacking, to display the attacking animation. And third, when the character is recovering from his attack, displaying a recover animation (i.e. moving his sword back from the extended position to the ready position). Real-time is complicated!

Now, how to handle it in code? For your action class, I have a similar set of classes. However, I subclass depending on the particular action. So "attack with a weapon" in one subclass, "cast a spell" is another, etc. Is something like that possible in your architecture? If so, you should be able to avoid having one mega-action class. I actually have one giant class that handles running all the actions through a switch statement. I'm not proud of this architecture, but there are not that many types of actions, so I live with it, and it works fine. You can probably do better than that, though, if you are writing code from scratch, by moving some or all of the action-running code into the sub-classes.

Hope that helps a little,

Geoff

##### Share on other sites

Well, you say you have a base class, for example "Attack" and that spells, sword swipes etc Derive from it?

The details of how to use the item should be handled by the derived class. The caller should not be concerned with this and should just call some "activate()" or "use()" method.

You could also have a factory system, whereby the sword generates attack derived objects and the spellbook (or whatever is source of your magic) does the same. These can be created dynamically based on the attack type.

If you can't make it work like that currently and the caller directly reads properties from the class and internally performs the action this is what is causing the confusion, refactor it to black box the use/cooldown code.

Hope this helps!

Edited by braindigitalis

##### Share on other sites

Well, you say you have a base class, for example "Attack" and that spells, sword swipes etc Derive from it?

The details of how to use the item should be handled by the derived class. The caller should not be concerned with this and should just call some "activate()" or "use()" method.

You could also have a factory system, whereby the sword generates attack derived objects and the spellbook (or whatever is source of your magic) does the same. These can be created dynamically based on the attack type.

If you can't make it work like that currently and the caller directly reads properties from the class and internally performs the action this is what is causing the confusion, refactor it to black box the use/cooldown code.

Hope this helps!

Nope, I dont have a class Attack. What I do plan to have (not yet) are classess for abilities you can apply on targets. I will follow your advice and derive specialized item classes, that will help to clear my game logic code.

##### Share on other sites

You might look into creating an interface for your attack items and implement this in your derived classes.  This would then allow separation of the data structures and game logic of how they work but still allow you to store them in a simple data structure.

For example if we have an interface defined like:

interface iAttackable
{
void Attack();
}


Then we could define a sword and spell class like this:

public class Sword : iAttackable
{
public void Attack()
{
//...Do some logic in the attack
}
}

public class Spell : iAttackable
{
public void Attack()
{
//...Do some logic in the attack
}
}


This way now you don't have to do a check on an object to see how to perform a specific attack.  Abstracting it this way now allows for different logic to be handled by the unique class.  You may need to add parameters to the interface in order to share objects between class but this information would be something you will need to figure out in your design.  Now then back to the interface and now that we have defined the usage in two classes we could write code like:

//....Update method definition skipped
iAttackable attackItem = new Sword(); // Or this could very well be "new Spell();"
attackItem.Attack();



Because the attackItem is a generic interface class we can store either the Spell class or the Sword class in this variable.  With this you can now even stack different kind of attacks so if a player wanted to use a sword and a spell they could without bloating your code just create a data structure to manage it.  Having a generic enough way to access different types of classes can be beneficial in a complex system.  One class can also implement multiple interfaces which then can allow you to blend different features generically into one class.  For example you may need to do something special on the spell being cast during the update process.  You can use type casting to these specific interfaces and then test if the cast worked before your proceed.

This is just one different approach that could help solve your design problem.  Try a couple of different ideas and see how it works best for your design.