Home » Tiberian Technologies / Blackhand Studios » Tiberian Technologies Forum » Some Fixes, Some Ideas
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345879 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 04:51   |
StealthEye
Messages: 2518
Registered: May 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
 
|
|
| Quote: |
Because the secondary fire isnt a bug. Well mayby a unfixed concept.
|
From the code, it's clearly a bug that it happens, the bug is not that the flames show up at both muzzles.
The reason it was bugged is this: the flame tank has two muzzles defined, only the primary fire ones. The game tries to guess what the secondary fire muzzles should be. It changes the muzzles like this:
primary muzzle 1: assumed to always be set.
primary muzzle 2: if unknown, this is set to primary muzzle 1.
secondary muzzle 1: if unknown, set to primary muzzle 1.
secondary muzzle 2: if unknown, set to secondary muzzle 1.
This works usually, when there is only one muzzle set or when primary1 and secondary1 are set properly. It fails however when primary1 and primary2 are set, but both secondaries are not. In that case, secondary muzzle 2 will be set to primary muzzle 1, which makes no sense. I changed it to set secondary muzzle 2 to primary muzzle 2 if secondary muzzle 1 was not set.
Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something.
Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial.
BlackIntel admin/founder/coder
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345884 is a reply to message #345879] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 05:15 |
 |
TD
Messages: 966
Registered: May 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| StealthEye wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 13:51 |
| Quote: |
Because the secondary fire isnt a bug. Well mayby a unfixed concept.
|
From the code, it's clearly a bug that it happens, the bug is not that the flames show up at both muzzles.
The reason it was bugged is this: the flame tank has two muzzles defined, only the primary fire ones. The game tries to guess what the secondary fire muzzles should be. It changes the muzzles like this:
primary muzzle 1: assumed to always be set.
primary muzzle 2: if unknown, this is set to primary muzzle 1.
secondary muzzle 1: if unknown, set to primary muzzle 1.
secondary muzzle 2: if unknown, set to secondary muzzle 1.
This works usually, when there is only one muzzle set or when primary1 and secondary1 are set properly. It fails however when primary1 and primary2 are set, but both secondaries are not. In that case, secondary muzzle 2 will be set to primary muzzle 1, which makes no sense. I changed it to set secondary muzzle 2 to primary muzzle 2 if secondary muzzle 1 was not set.
Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something.
Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial.
|
Adding PT's outside buildings? Changing the secondary damage-in-one-barrel? I think TT is becoming a mod instead of a 'fix of the ANNOYING glitches in Renegade' patch. There are some glitches that have been used since the start of Renegade (pt from outside buildings), and some glitches which fuck up the game (like blue hell). I'm not gonna mention the pointsfix to prevent a 20 page discussion with Spoony.
Secondary fire is actually useful and you can precisely aim with the flame tank, stank and mrls. Even if Westwood didn't intend to do this (not saying they didn't), it has actually added precise aiming for these tanks and has been used by many people since this was found out.
Some things will just screw up Renegade instead of making it more fun. Do not fix what the majority of the people like (people that have been Renegading over 3 years at least), please.
Focus on stopping all Renegade cheats and exploits and fixing annoying glitches only, and put whatever else you like in a separate patch. Please, thank you.
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 05:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345888 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 05:31 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9727
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
How can you not see the secondary fire as a bug? There's fire coming from both barrels and only the left one does damage, moreover double damage. Not only that, but at other vehicles like mrls, ... you clearly see that the animation isn't made to have all 6 rockets come out at the right side.
Many people got no clue about this bug and are very surprised to be killed in less than a second by a flamer. It seems to be me that a few people that seem to know all possible bugs out there and tend to use it to their advantage don't want them to dissapear.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345923 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 09:25 |
Jamie or NuneGa
Messages: 954
Registered: June 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Imo the only problem with the flame tanks secondary fire is the animation, this does indeed seem to be a bug, but as for the damage concentrated on one barrel, that does not.
Jamie is a guys name in Europe...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345931 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 10:01 |
Reaver11
Messages: 884
Registered: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It is easy to do it on the flamer. Just put a B bone on the right muzzle. After that grand I think the flamerfire animation will get screwed up (Flametank has a double animation so even with a B it will show up)Then you could just use the flamethrower animation for that. It isnt hard to fix and resize it if necesary.
But disableing the concept is not a good idea.
EDIT: Ok I have been trying to see if it was easy fixable for the flamer by adding a MuzzleB0. I fires from one muzzle but it still plays the animation from the MuzzleA0 bone lets see what I can come up with (There must be some better way then disabbeling the enteire concept)[A dummy secondary fire would work, just something that doesnt do a thing, only that is bypassing and not fixing the flamer]
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 10:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345949 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 11:16 |
 |
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
Screenshot of Weapon_FlameTank_Player with certain details circled. If double damage or other effects were intended on secondary fire, they would be controlled by these settings. Instead, they are the same. Therfore different behavior on secondary fire is clearly a bug.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345956 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 11:39 |
_SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
|
well a big group of friends and most do clan wars say that right click on flamer can kill a med lot faster...then some other friends of mine said with great bealife on teams peak saying it does really work and they still still by it...iv also heard it somewhere else
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345959 is a reply to message #345879] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 11:56 |
 |
Chuck Norris
Messages: 312
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| StealthEye wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 07:51 |
Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something.
Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial.
|
If it's too much work, that's one thing. Otherwise, it's a bug, and it shouldn't be left for laziness and/or exploiting sake. Everyone being used to it shouldn't be a reason either, because that wasn't bought by those wanting the points fix instated (I am for the points fix, by the way). It was not meant to be that way, and is thus a bug.
As for the smaller games, that's true, but think about it. It still balances itself out. If it's a 2v2 and I'm on GDI, I'm not too worried. By time someone has $1400 and the time to get your base, you should have $1500 for a Mammoth Tank, or if you prefer a Medium Tank, there's that instead with leftover. I know I'd rather have a vehicle and an ally doing whatever versus 1 Nod enemy (the other is the SBH). The SBH is guaranteed one building, but if played right, GDI is guaranteed AT LEAST as much (and if the other Nod guy snuck in as a Stank, two GDI vehicles should take out Nod's base faster, or it may be really close, depending on who hits first and with what). SBH's are NOT overpowered. Yes, you see it happen alot, but that's because that's what Nod does (just like strength is what GDI does). SBH's aren't overpowered or anything. Because of this bug and more widespread knowledge of it, they're actually alot more worthless. I still see no real reason why this shouldn't be fixed, unless it is actually too much work, as I don't mean to sound disrespectful or demanding of the work being put into this, but with all these features being added, I think bugs should be looked at first, and this one I do think needs fixed and has no real argument for why it should stay.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 11:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345963 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 12:09 |
_SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing
anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 12:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345968 is a reply to message #345963] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 13:05 |
Reaver11
Messages: 884
Registered: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 |
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing
anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
|
Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation).
That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system?
EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it)
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 13:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345971 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 13:24 |
_SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
|
easy fix....since it only works with one side and still shows fire coming out the other end even tho it does nothing...make it come out both sides when you click ether left or right and make sure it = the same damage as it did with just one shooting out
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345973 is a reply to message #345968] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 13:31 |
|
Goztow
Messages: 9727
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
| Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 22:05 |
| SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 |
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing
anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
|
Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation).
That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system?
EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it)
|
What part of the image posted by Saberhawk did u miss?
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345975 is a reply to message #345968] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 13:33 |
|
saberhawk
Messages: 1068
Registered: January 2006
Location: ::1
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 15:05 |
| SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 |
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing
anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
|
Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation).
That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system?
EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it)
|
We aren't "disabling" anything, we are fixing a "logic" bug. If the flametank was ment to fire two flame rays from the first secondary barrel location, the second secondary barrel location would have been in the exact same location as the first. Instead, there are no secondary barrels defined at all and the logic error places both secondary barrels in the first primary barrel location instead of in the primary barrel locations.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345978 is a reply to message #345975] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 13:38 |
_SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
| Saberhawk wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 13:33 |
| Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 15:05 |
| SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 |
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing
anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
|
Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation).
That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system?
EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it)
|
We aren't "disabling" anything, we are fixing a "logic" bug. If the flametank was ment to fire two flame rays from the first secondary barrel location, the second secondary barrel location would have been in the exact same location as the first. Instead, there are no secondary barrels defined at all and the logic error places both secondary barrels in the first primary barrel location instead of in the primary barrel locations.
|
say what....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345984 is a reply to message #345879] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 14:57 |
Reaver11
Messages: 884
Registered: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It seems mayby my posts dont describe it good. My bad then.
I get perfectly fine that the flamer weapon as it is and that it is bugged. Heck I even stated I tried to find a way to fix it in a different way by adding a muzzleB0 but no that didnt work. I does work with a different weapon if you need a screeny of it. Only yes the flames then stil display from the two muzzles. Even by setting the 2nd fire to the flamethrower didnt work (same emmiter I assumed it wouldnt work but I did try it) So I didnt post this out of not knowing what is going on. Because I do and I wanted tos ee if there was a different way to fix it.
And ofcourse for some units the solution is easy for the rocket emplacement I posted. I could just add a MuzzleB0 and it is still the same. Only I want to see the 2nd mode of the rocketemplacement kept useable server-side without needing an auto download for it -> here a screeny
I know it doesnt look good on this ssm launcher (it is from sole survivor) but heck it works so telling me that this would work would be way better then saying 'dont you get these pictures'. So sorry if that wasnt readable in my posts. All I want is that you keep this for the rocketemplacement on server-sided maps it is kinda usefull so you can actually hit something.
Otherwise without this system or an muzzleB0 bone to the left side then the rocket emplacement would be renderd useless and yes that is my opinion and doesnt have anything to do with the flamer because I stated it should be fixed.
So I'm sorry if you couldn't get this out of my posts. I'm not an hero in english. 
(duno if those pictures where all for me but o' well, i dont want to hurt anyone with it if i did im sorry)
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 15:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some Fixes, Some Ideas [message #345987 is a reply to message #342538] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 15:13 |
Reaver11
Messages: 884
Registered: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Ah damnz0r I assumed that the rocketemplacement worked the same way my bad.
I didnt look inside it, okay fix all the stuff it seems ah well that I have got the part of the weapon set of the rocketemplacement wrong because I forgot to look there -.-
[Updated on: Sun, 10 August 2008 15:15] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 22 20:24:11 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.23613 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
