There is no campaign as of yet, only skirmish style battles. But if the idea catches on, I’d definitely put it on my list :)

Thank you! :)

Thank you! :)

It’s a good practice to adhere to proper design patterns even on smaller projects. I also work solo on small projects :). It doesn’t really cost you anything to work with classes, it’d even say it’s easier once you get a hang of it

I’m a super fan of low poly style, so I’m drawn into that direction in all of my projects :) glad you like it too!

The idea of physical cargo flying around crossed my mind, I’ll definitely revisit it. Care to share the name of the game your kids play? I’d like to check for inspirations.

Thanks, appreciate it!

Some type of logistics tycoon, maybe mixed with some puzzle solving. There are a couple of ideas I’m currently running around 😅

Yes, as long as you know what components are inside the Zombie scene, then you can export it. But the idea of being more flexible is that you shouldn’t need to update the Zombie class when you add a new component to it. E.g. You want the zombie to be “Bumpable” now (for some reason :)), then you should be able to just add the Bumpable node to your Zombie scene and that’s it. With your approach, you’d need to also reference and export it in the Zombie class first.

Good idea, posted on streamable.com too :) thanks!

We don’t have generics in gdscript unfortunately, there’s a whole thread discussing about it here. You’d need to either have this piece of code in every place you want to retrieve the component, or you could have a static function in the component class that takes a node as a parameter and checks if it has children nodes of the correct type. Then it can return the correct type node as well and should be fully type safe. But you need to have this static function on each and every component class, which I think you can’t overcome without generics.

Correct, I’d also use exported values if possible. But that isn’t flexible enough in some cases, because you’d need to individually export all possible attributes that the node might have.

For it to be more flexible, you could have something like this:

for child in get_children():
  if child is ClassNameHere:
    return child

That would give you the same result as described in the article, without string reference. You could make a static func for it and call it a day :)

I tried, but I can’t post a video directly here :/ unless I’m missing any obvious way?

Why are people still using string references? Like in the case of “Bumpable” - this could be a class name and reference could be via the class name instead of checking the node name by string. String references are super dangerous, as you will get a potential error only at runtime if you make a typo, IDE can’t help you. Don’t get me wrong - I like the idea behind component pattern and I use it myself sometimes, but the execution could be better in my opinion, unless I’m missing some obvious reasons for doing it this way.

Dude, my company has just been acquired by another one. This is me every day now for the next couple of months.

Thanks! You can play a demo now, it’s available for the Steam Next Fest. Have fun!

It’s just Paint behind it, isn’t it?

Great, looking forward to hear your feedback!

That’s a great website that I didn’t know existed, thanks for sharing!

I’m missing the joke… would anyone be so kind to help me understand?

I know a version with a graphics designer. They designed something in 10 minutes and asked 1000 USD for it. When confronted on why it is so expensive for just 10 minutes of work, the answer is that it’s not just the 10 minutes of work, but also the 10 years of experience that lead to this 10 minutes of work.