Originally Posted by
Sheridan
Holy cannoli. Do you need help to put together 2 and 2?
I didn't start with one argument and shift to another; I reinforced the original by explaining how it actually works on a mechanical level. Bumping and radius correlate. Does it have to be so difficult to grasp that? On one hand animations generate the movements we see in game, on the other hand these would do absolutely nothing in the example situations if the radius was not sufficiently high. Reducing it to a quarter of its current value would effectively mean no bumping at all but an extreme amount of clipping. Reducing the lengthy combat animations where soldiers move a considerable distance would also mean less bumping. The soldier model you see on the screen only has as much integrity as it's been told to have via the entity file. If you change it, you can reduce the clipping entirely or make it happen on grand scale. The model itself has no integrity at all.
I'm not arguing for pushing at all, the mere fact that you haven't grasped that is beyond the point of ridiculousness. Because pushing is not something that exists in the game, which I've been saying all along. But mechanics that do exist, like entity integrity, can falsely lead you into believing that pushing exists by said mechanic's nature.
You are the one cherry-picking by rejecting virtually every piece of information, knowledge or thing of similar nature that I present to the discussion. Then you even shift goalposts. Take a few examples,
"What really happens is that soldiers in the front line who are attacked take a step back in certain conditions. Not because an allied or non-attacking enemy soldier bumps into them, but because of an attack they endure or for an other reason that makes them take a step back." and "Your scenario just doesn't happen" Which later changed to: "The kind of bumping you're talking about is at best very minimal."
"I doubt you're doing any of these tests properly or that weight is not the deciding factor." Which later changed to: "Perhaps, the weight variable is not a factor in pushing but the number of attackers are."
You're being inconsistent. And you don't understand how these things actually work. Read my last reply to Fanest carefully if you actually care even the slightest about finding out the reality of this. It explains thoroughly why we're seeing what we're seeing in test 1 and 2. Your "thanks for showing us again" reply comes across as the most ignorant post so far based on its content. You literally claim there's no difference in test 3, which you rationalise by saying "a certain degree of randomness should exist". But you can't even spot the one, single thing that made both test 1 and 2 turn out differently - a thing I pointed out.
Re: An analysis of mass and its role in Rome 1 and Rome 2
