Non-static objects will work the exact same as crates worked in HatPC. If there are several in a stack and the bottom one gets destroyed, all the crates ontop of it would fall down.
The only difference is that if you place a non-static object in the air at the beginning of a level, it will automatically fall down.
This would also be possible with spikes. If a spike is hanging from a crate and the crate gets destroyed, the spike will fall to the ground and kill you if you are standing beneath it.

Static objects won't fall to the ground, ever. If there are several static crates in a stack and the bottom one gets destroyed, the other crates won't fall down. They will just keep on hanging there in the air.
In the case of static boulders, it will still be possible to push them to the side. Only this time, they won't fall down. They will simply move 1 square over to the side.

The objects this will apply to include: crates, boulders, power boxes and spikes. Perhaps more if we think up more stuff this might apply too.
This won't affect non-solid objects, such as doors and water taps.

in the second paragrab you mean static crates, not non-static. correct this.

now about boulders. we need to discuss this. here are a few codes to demostrate a few things to discuss:





kay, this is enough for now. first one: we will be able to push the boulder far enough to destroy the spike? that seems reasonable? =\

second one: this boulder can actually move to the other side of the pit.


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
and now another thing - the non-solid objects.

water tap obviously has to be static y-axis-wisely. it doesn't even matter if it's not. but, x-axis-wisely, if it were moveable, it'd make very unique possibilities.

doors; do they really have to be static x-axis-wisely? it could be so awsome to have the door run away from you xD...but i can't think of any serious way to make it move. if you come up with ideas, write them up please =D

water levels: could we make waves? could we make tides?

first one: yes. i think it should be able to destroy the spike. second one: I also think that the boulder should be able to move to the other side of the pit

In both cases, yes. The y-coordinate will remain the same.

yeah we could do this stuff. sounds good. static boulders sound confusing though

They are the exact same as boulders, except they won't drop down.

In this situation:



If you push the boulder to the left, it will drop down. Like this:



However, static boulder will remain floating, like this:

  

Over-complicates things for me. NEUTRAL because I'm interested to see how people would use them.

i don't think we should use static boulders. it looks too...wierd, you know.
i think we all agree that static class is good; but we do need to have a discussion about this static boulder.

It might be better to save that discussion until Accel starts coding the actual objects. We already know how it will work, so I don't think a discussion will be usefull.

I have to admit, the static class in general offers new possibilities to traps and is a definite ACCEPT. However, static boulders will be unrealistic and I have the feeling that they will be abused to make very annoying traps, so I'll have to REJECT to boulder idea, but noting else.

However it will be the cavemaker's fault if they put annoying traps. I think it would be great for puzzles and certain kinds of traps.

They will need to look different or..... Dammit that not what I was meant to do....this one floats.

I don't see how this could be abused. If anything, it will be harder to abuse this because it won't suddenly fall down when you least expect it.

well no, but all boulders could fall down or maybe they are going to get hit by an arrow when they dont. Also why would some boulders stay still when other dont? I just think when you have two types that look the same you wont be able to tell how a trap is going to work depending on what kind of boulders they are. take



and you were trying to destroy the spike below. It would just be annoying without being able tell and you may want to use both types in a cool puzzle, but not if they are indistinguishable.

I never said they were going to look the same. I thought it was quite obvious they would look different.

i suppose we could make a combination; for example, a static metal crate would appear as a metal crate standing on a platform - but both are in the same tile. but of course, a static metal crate is just like a platform that's inaccessible from below.

about crates - well, we'll discuss this in time. but they won't look the same, harumbai.

or maybe they could have tiny electric bolts around them. I mean: static ELECTRICITY!

In HATPC, pushing boulders are implemented using the falling objects system. If HATPC had static objects, the static boulders would not push. If we have a static class, it would be a different decision whether or not our static boulders will push. Non-pushable static boulders would still have a use, as non-static boulders would roll off of them.

I dunno if I already said this, but I would APPROVE of the whole static system. I see no reason why we shouldn't include boulders into the static category.

I could have sworn that someone mentioned the idea of non-static platforms, but I guess they didn't. But if you ever come to think about the idea of non-static platforms, please just don't. That would be the one of the failest idea's ever.

But I could see non-static ladders working. Of course, someone might have suggested that elsewhere already, but that's what happens when you don't keep up with every conversation going on here.

ladders could become ropes, and thus be affected by gravity if their top is destroyed and fall into nothingness, or you know, be cut into two when the buttom falls. also, they could be hit by stuff that will make them move as in uhh...what's that word...well you know, when the rope moves left-right-left-right etc until it stops? =\

Okay...

But if a rope falls, it just falls onto the ground, and you can no longer climb it. Doing this with ladders would make much more sense.

I...don't understand why. what you said is exactly what i meant. you can do the same with ladders if you'd like - if you have the highlighted ladder destroyed in this code:

"
"
"
"
"

they'll all fall; and if it would be this way:
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

so only the top two will stay there, usable.

oh, I see what you're saying now. I was actually kind of considering that we could make it so that segments of the ladder could fall down, and that you could then climb the segments that have fallen down.

We did have rope ladders as an idea, which is basically the opposite. If a piece of the ladder gets destroyed, the entire section beneath it also gets destroyed. However with this, the section above it will fall down.

What about being able move ladders left and right (like re-attaching the top to something futhur over)?