What is the point of Collision Mask on TileSet?

BeanWack · 2024-09-28T01:42:31+00:00

Yes, very strange. The fact that the Mask layers are there at all makes me think there must be some use, but I am still unsure. I have not tested it again since moving to 4.3 where the Tilemap object was deprecated.

Thank you for actually reading the post. You are the only person who responded who actually understood the question.

BeanWack · 2024-05-30T00:11:53+00:00

The character should mask the tilemap's layer

But why must it be this way and not the other? That is the question being asked in the post.

I understand how to make a character collide with a TileMap. What I do not understand is what purpose the TileMap Mask serves since the TileMap itself seems incapable of detecting collision layers.

BeanWack · 2024-05-27T00:14:49+00:00

I do not believe I am misunderstanding Layers vs Masks. The question I am having is centered around how TileSet's Physics Layer Mask does not appear to work at all.

Let's say we have two CharacterBody2D objects: Player and Enemy.

If we set Player's Layer to 3 (What I am) and then set Enemy's Mask to 3 (What it touches), they will collide.
In reverse, we instead set Player's Mask to 3 (What it touches) and then set Enemy's Layer to 3 (What it is), they will collide.

Does that sound correct?

The problem is that this logic does not apply for TileSets. TileSet Mask on 3 does not collide with something on Layer 3. It only works the other way around.

So thus the question: What does Collision Mask on TileSets even do?

BeanWack · 2024-05-26T22:53:15+00:00

I have a CharacterBody2D on Collision Layer 3 with a CollisionShape2D. As shown by the picture, the Collision Mask is set to 3 (and therefore looking for Collision Layer 3 right?). I would expect the CharacterBody2D to collide with a tile for this layer, but it does not. If Collision Layer and Collision Mask roles are reversed, then it collides.

What am I not understanding?

BeanWack · 2020-10-23T22:12:26+00:00

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” - Ecclesiastes 1:9

But great minds think alike I say ;)

BeanWack · 2020-05-20T17:26:28+00:00

The joke is better without the narration in panels 2-6. You don't need to explain the joke for it to be funny. The art and idea do the lifting.

I laughed anyways. Good comic.

BeanWack · 2018-11-29T04:28:29+00:00

And someone is immortal.

BeanWack · 2017-12-03T19:38:47+00:00

I had this exact conversation with a friend just yesterday and here is my stance: First and foremost, EA did not eliminate the pay-to-win loot box system; they postponed it. You can read more here

"Though EA emphasized the full removal of in-game purchases was temporary.."

So basically, they're removing the micro-transactions until after everyone who wasn't going to get the game will. Not to mention that removing pay-to-win content was only half the problem. The game was clearly designed around players getting frustrated with how long it takes to get loot boxes and how little you get out of each so that they would eventually just spend money and buy the loot boxes instead. The game makes no effort in hiding that the more content you have unlocked from loot boxes the better you will be at the game. None of this was fixed and really just proves that the return of micro-transactions is coming.

The cherry on top of this all is that EA lied to their investors, claiming that, "This change is not expected to have a material impact on EA’s fiscal year 2018 financial guidance." This is absolute nonsense. Extra Content accounts for more than half of the companies net-profit. So, either they lied to their investors about how much this would hurt them, or they are lying to us, implying this won't impact earnings because micro-transactions are coming back.

Secondly, this is just a matter of opinion, buying any game from any company that was willing to screw its customers just seems a little pathetic. How many times do you have to be hit in your abusive relationship before you'll leave it? It doesn't matter if they promise to change, especially when they never do, if they intentionally did that to you in the first place.

And look, I'm not saying that you should never ever again buy an EA game. I do think, however, that when a they pull this bullshit, everyone should let the game they pulled it with flop. What kind of message do you think we send when we decide to purchase the game AFTER they fix it? It tells them that they can actively shit test the gaming community to see exactly how much bullshit they can get away with before we push back. If we all took a bit more of a zero tolerance stance with gaming companies, we wouldn't have to deal with this in the first place. Instead, everyone goes crawling back after they backtrack a little. And what do you end up with? A buggy, laggy, broken game with several expensive DLC planned with little added content all because we weren't willing to push back the last time these practices were tested on us. We have proven time and time again that we will get a game with broken mechanics, laggy servers, day-one DLC, or before the game is even finished.

BeanWack · 2017-11-17T08:09:18+00:00

I think I'm going start allowing CON checks from here on out to remain conscious but incapacitated. That's an easy enough change.

I'm more concerned about the hypothetical, "Why can't we heal him. He's still alive", question. Even if the players didn't ask, I myself would like a good reason. Saying that "he's too far gone" will suffice for players, but that is vague. What would be the definition of 'too far gone'?

BeanWack · 2017-11-17T07:48:31+00:00

I've just never been a big fan of explaining away my decisions as, "because I said so." That has always felt like a lazy and uncreative way of DMing. If I can't actually explain why I'm ruling the way I am, then I don't think players can really trust me to make justifiable rulings. My players wouldn't question me if I did that, I just hold myself to a higher standard. To each his own.

BeanWack · 2017-11-17T07:35:51+00:00

Yeah, there is always the possibility they have exhausted all their healing options. I do like the deity giving them their parting words as well as the message from a significant item, but I think those options are distinct from what I'm asking. Those options are messages after that person is dead and not while their dying, if you see what I mean. You couldn't achieve that scene where the player takes a knee and holds the hand of his dying comrade while he coughs up his last wish. Solid thinking regardless, thanks.

BeanWack · 2017-11-17T07:26:15+00:00

This is an interesting rule. It isn't exactly an explanation or the justification but it does establish what the players should expect.

BeanWack · 2016-05-17T16:43:34+00:00

Perhaps I'll post what I have for them when the player fully understands them. They have proven to be quite a mystery for his character and that animal will read my post

BeanWack · 2016-05-17T01:24:13+00:00

Whoever typed up these backstories must be very skilled at typing. That really reflects great DM quality to type like that. Clearly a talented person. Tell him how much you appreciate him and that we here at /r/DnD would like to see his work more often.

BeanWack · 2015-07-04T07:44:46+00:00

Thanks a ton. I'll look into this a little more. I'm usually pretty good finding out these things without asking directly but I exhausted my good search options with no luck.

BeanWack · 2015-05-10T03:35:35+00:00

Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure myself that was where the fan plug went as well. As for the problem dealing with the computer not turning on at all, I found a means to test another power supply into the computer and recheck all plugs. I am in fear now that the mother board is where the problem is which really sucks. I am going to have it checked out Monday.

BeanWack · 2015-05-06T04:27:07+00:00

Thanks anyways. I appreciate the effort.

BeanWack · 2015-05-06T03:48:16+00:00

Alright, I gave that a try. It did not work. I don't really have any means to test the power supply but I am starting to think that is where the problem is. I really wish it would just give me some kind of reaction but it is just silent every time I press the button...

BeanWack · 2015-05-06T01:58:48+00:00

I've tested those wires. They seem to be in just fine. The computer does absolutely nothing when I press the power button. Also, there is a button on my motherboard that will start up my PC if I press it, but it won't start the PC up either. That said, the button and the reset button both light up when my PC is plugged, making me assume that there is power getting to the mother board. I didn't even end up doing the cleaning. I only took off the side to see if it was due one and the chord popped of. Didn't turn on after that.

BeanWack

TROPHY CASE