Jump to content

Tweaks to restraints and hand behaviour


Recommended Posts

There are some issues with character behaviour in relation to having your hands restrained.

Firstly, you can use your radio, but you cannot open doors. This makes no sense at all.

Secondly, if you lose both your hands, you can still operate the radio without issue.

 

So I suggest either you're allowed to open doors if you have your ID on you by bumping into the door
or
Disallow usage of the radio while restrained, and yknow, when your hands are fucking gone.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Pratepresidenten said:

There are some issues with character behaviour in relation to having your hands restrained.

Firstly, you can use your radio, but you cannot open doors. This makes no sense at all.

Secondly, if you lose both your hands, you can still operate the radio without issue.

 

So I suggest either you're allowed to open doors if you have your ID on you by bumping into the door
or
Disallow usage of the radio while restrained, and yknow, when your hands are fucking gone.

While I don't disagree with you, I am fairly certain it was deliberately made this way so that handcuffed people can't flee through an airlock with ease, and then potentially close it behind themselves.  Mind you, I think handcuffing is already pretty busted and could use a few nerfs, given that it renders a person completely helpless as long as you start dragging them.

Link to comment

I still am completely confused as to whether your hands are cuffed behind your back, hence why you can't open doors or cuffed in front of you, but your just inept at using them. I mean the sprites are confusing af. If your hands are restrained in front of you, you could still use them, you just wouldn't really be able to fight effectively. Just hurts my brain to think about it.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Kaed said:

While I don't disagree with you, I am fairly certain it was deliberately made this way so that handcuffed people can't flee through an airlock with ease, and then potentially close it behind themselves.

This would not be an option, as you should only bump into the door to open it, but you'd be unable to close it. It wouldnt react to on-click effects, just.. Contact effects?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pratepresidenten said:

This would not be an option, as you should only bump into the door to open it, but you'd be unable to close it. It wouldnt react to on-click effects, just.. Contact effects?

The problem is that doors don't actually react to 'on contact' effects.  Codewise, what you're doing (I think) when you're running into door is running a check for the object in your active hand, then making some check to see if a valid ID object is in the ID slot if it can't find one.  This is why it does not work if you have the ID in anything other than your active hand or ID slot, and why if you are holding an invalid ID in your active hand but not in your ID slot, the door will reject you, because it just takes the first ID object it finds and processes that.  This is why throwing an ID (or emag) at a door is pointless.  The effect of them is created by them being in your active hand when you interact with the door.

However, it's worth noting that as far as code goes, being handcuffed is essentially like not having hands.  The reason you cannot interact with most objects is (I think) because the game is treating you as if your hands are missing.  This is important because if you do not have hands, it is impossible to open doors.  You fail the check that is made to see if you can interact with the door object (or any other object you interact with using your hands) and it does not react to you.  This situation is identical to actually having your hands cut off - it is a rare scenario where this happens, but during a certain tesla incident I had both my hands burned off, and the round becomes unplayable.  It's functionally almost identical to being permanently handcuffed, unable to open doors or pick up and hold objects, or even defend yourselves.  Checks to see if you have hands when you interact with almost anything happen very frequently and you don't even notice most of the time because generally speaking you just have them.

Humantype mobcode is frankly a mess of barely held together nonsense, but what I'm really trying to get across is that you'd essentially have to rewrite restraint code and possibly even humantype code to make this work, and most likely it would have unintended side effects on the effectiveness of handcuffing.

Edited by Kaed
Link to comment
  • Gem locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...