[Rseding91] [0.17.59] Setting cliffs indestrucible does not stop cliff explosives

[Phoenix27833]

Indestructible and unminable cliffs can still be destroyed with cliff explosives

[Rseding91]

I can "fix" this but the fix isn't so clear. If a specific cliff is indestructible does that mean that it can't change shape if the cliff next to it is destroyed? Because technically that alters the cliff.

The indestructible flag was added for entities that have health and could be damaged - cliffs don't support either concept.

I almost want to say that the flag simply doesn't apply to cliffs.

Do you have some use-case that could convince me otherwise?

[TOGoS]

I can "fix" this but the fix isn't so clear. If a specific cliff is indestructible does that mean that it can't change shape if the cliff next to it is destroyed? Because technically that alters the cliff.

The indestructible flag was added for entities that have health and could be damaged - cliffs don't support either concept.

I almost want to say that the flag simply doesn't apply to cliffs.

Do you have some use-case that could convince me otherwise?

How about a map where you want the player to never be able to ever remove certain cliffs?

But moreover if there's an 'indestructible' flag I would expect it to make a thing indestructible by any means (other than the editor or scripting), regardless if it 'has health'.

[Rseding91]

How about a map where you want the player to never be able to ever remove certain cliffs?

But moreover if there's an 'indestructible' flag I would expect it to make a thing indestructible by any means (other than the editor or scripting), regardless if it 'has health'.

But how should it work if a single cliff is marked and the edge letting it exist is blown up? Cliffs don't support existing without at least 1 edge so the "indestructible" cliff ends up removed by blowing up the neighbor.

[quyxkh]

If making a cliff truly indestructible requires making at least one of its neighbours indestructible too, I don't see how that could be called wrong, maybe just a bit surprising to the uninitiated.

[TOGoS]

If making a cliff truly indestructible requires making at least one of its neighbours indestructible too, I don't see how that could be called wrong, maybe just a bit surprising to the uninitiated.

Hmm, yeah, it'll take a little bit of work so that the correction logic takes that into account, but I also think that's the correct solution. You can't destroy the neighbors of an indestructible cliff segment.

[Rseding91]

If making a cliff truly indestructible requires making at least one of its neighbours indestructible too, I don't see how that could be called wrong, maybe just a bit surprising to the uninitiated.

I would be OK with that. It's simple enough that it won't have a performance impact on the normal "all cliffs can be blown up" logic.

[quyxkh]

Hunh. I was thinking the even-easier-to-implement route: you have to light two adjacent cliff sections' flags to make them truly indestructible because reasons. Perhaps not the most popular view.