This is the third and final part of my three part series on the Entity Component System we are using at @ZenobitStudios.

In the first part, I discussed what an ECS is, and why we chose this architecture for our games. In the second part, I talked through several areas in which an ECS offers some potential advantages over the "standard" Unity architecture. In this third and final part, I'm going to describe a concrete example of how we implemented a particular feature in our ECS.

Show don't tell?

In the previous post I presented some concrete examples using an example where we have Entities (or game objects) with a HealthComponent and a ShieldComponent. We're going to take this a step further here and describe (in a relatively hand wavy way) how we implemented ranged combat in our current game project.

Unity Version

I'll start by describing how I would normally implement a ranged combat system in "Unity default" game architecture. I'm going to throw up a sequence diagram to describe the system, and then step through it bit by bit.

You can see there are three participants in this approach - a "Ranged Attacker", a HealthComponent and a ShieldComponent, which are MonoBehaviour derived classes attached to the same GameObject. First, let's assume that we have some sort of ranged attacker (hand wavy assumption #1) which raycasts / sphere overlaps or whatever to find which enemies to hurt, and a weapon class (hand wavy assumption #2) which stores weapon data.

Typically our attacker would then have a bunch of colliders to test against, and there would be some logic:

// in our ranged attacker MonoBehaviour
private void Update()
{
if (GetComponent<HealthComponent>().Health <= 0)
{
Destroy(gameObject);
return;
}

var hits = Physics.RaycastAll(
transform.position, transform.forward, weapon.Range);

foreach (var hit in hits)
{
var health = hit.transform.GetComponent<HealthComponent>();
if (health != null) health.TakeDamage(weapon.Damage);
}
}


This is the first loop in our sequence diagram, which is called on every attacker's Update method. If the attacker has health > 0 (the opt bit in the sequence diagram) then it calls the public TakeDamage method of any collided HealthComponents. This then triggers the Health Component to find out if there is an attached Shield Component. If there is, then it runs the shield's logic and reduce health by any remaining damage. It might look something like this:

public void TakeDamage(float damage)
{
var damageTaken = shield == null
? damage
: shield.GetRemainingDamage(damage);
Health -= damageTaken;
}


That's pretty straightforward, and I'll leave the implementation of ShieldComponent::GetRemainingDamage() up to your imagination. We now need a way to remove dead GameObjects. We could do this in the TakeDamage method on HealthComponent, and just check if health is less than or equal to 0 and Destroy() the game object. This could cause difficulties though, as now there is a possibility that objects are destroyed before they have the ability to attack back. In theory, whichever objects are higher in the Update order now have an advantage.

To fix this, we need to move our "death" code out of the TakeDamage loop and into an Update method. However, if you ran the code now, there would still be a problem. By default, GameObjects are considered in the order that they were instantiated in, then each MonoBehaviour on the GameObject has its Update method called, in a slightly strange order.1 We still can't guarantee that ordering in the hierarchy won't have an impact on the outcome of ranged combat. To fix this we need to set an order of script execution using the Script Execution Order editor window. This way we can ensure all of the ranged attack occurs before any HealthComponent destroys an entity. It works, but its a bit confusing and arguably not very scalable.

There you go - the Unity system in a nutshell. Now let's take a look at how our ECS tackled this.

ECS Version

Once again, I'll throw out the sequence diagram for starters, then work through it.

Immediately you can see there are a few more moving pieces. Now we have three systems alongside our two components. The components have the same data attached but the HealthComponent now has a DamageReceived property2, but all logic has been removed from them.

Our systems run one at a time, in the order in which they are added to the ECS when we bootstrap it. Each runs an Update loop, which for the RangedSystem may look like the following3:

public void Update()
{
foreach (var enemy in _enemyMatcher.GetMatches())
{
}
}


It doesn't get too much simpler than that. Obviously there are some implementation details around how we get the list of enemies to attack,4 but the system itself couldn't be easier to understand.

The DamageSystem then runs, calculating how much damage goes to health and how much to shields. It might look like this:

public void Update()
{
foreach (var enemy in Ecs.GetAll<HealthComponent>())
{
var shieldTaken = 0;

if (enemy.Has<ShieldComponent>())
{
shieldTaken = Mathf.Min(
enemy.Get<ShieldComponent>().Energy);

enemy.Get<ShieldComponent>().Energy -= shieldTaken;
}

}
}


This looks like a "lot" of code, but it combines the HealthComponent::TakeDamage() and ShieldComponent::GetRemainingDamage() methods from our Unity implementation into one place. Basically we allocate the damage between shields and health and update them accordingly.

Finally we have our DeathSystem which removes entities when they die. It probably looks something like this:

public void Update()
{
foreach (var health in Ecs.GetAll<HealthComponent>())
{
if (health.Health <= 0) Ecs.Destroy(health.Entity);
}
}


Again, we can tell at a glance exactly what the code does, and we can guarantee without any configuration or magic that it won't be executed until after all damage has been dealt out.

As the systems operate on a "batch" of Components in order, and components are complete standalone, then it makes race conditions unlikely. While Unity does provide a workable solution to this issue in the Script Execution Order settings, the ECS approach is failsafe in that it protects against race conditions by default.

Comparing the two

So I'm sure you could look at the Unity or ECS code and suggest ways they could be improved. However, they are after all just examples for illustration, and a bit hand wavy as I promised.

Looking back at the two, the ECS architecture has a few more moving pieces, and it probably results in a bit more code being written. However in my mind at least, it provides a much simpler, more loosely coupled structure than the Unity approach. Importantly:

1. None of the Systems depend on any of the other systems
2. Each of the Systems contains all the necessary logic to perform their function (recall that this also makes refactoring our code significantly easier)
3. The Systems do one thing, and only one thing
4. The Components just hold data, they don't do anything else

In my mind this makes for a more flexible, more extensible architecture. Hopefully I've given you some insight into why we picked our particular approach for game architecture, and how we get it to work. I'm sure you have your own opinions and that's totally fine by me!

I hope you enjoyed the series, and keep an eye out for Zenobit games in the future to see if we can put our games where our words are!!