As we know, the bug is pretty annoying.

When we just stand behind an obstacle or polygon, there is an explosion is behind it in the other side. We lose health, you know.

[IMAGE]

My idea is to fix it, that you can not lose your health by being behind the obstacle or polygon. So, you could take cover. Like this.

[IMAGE]

Comments please!
(sexah images for bad english guys... :P)

lol
Nice pics. xD

I don't know if this can be done. The explosion radius (in the center of the explosion graphic there's an invisible, small circle for who will get hurt from it depending on how far away he is; about the size of a Medium-Large collider, maybe a tad larger) can't be altered by polygons, so if the polygon's thin enough the explosion can injure soldaten on the other side; this explosion radius goes through it.
Maybe Michal can make the explosion radius "bounce" when it hits a polygon, so it'll move away from it (but then, what if it's caught between two thin polygons and it reaches through both? It might keep bouncing so fast the explosion radius will fly off to Alpha base and kill a camper there! :-P).

Perhaps the explosion radius's diameter can shrink if there's not enough space for the standard size? Yes, I'd like that :-) It's a really complicated dilemma.

This would add to realism, but it would be really hard to implement I think.. besides, explosive weapons gain their strenght from being able to harm people over obstacles, so it would be a major nerf for M79, Law and grenades.

yeah sometimes like on inf_great_wall, im guarding the flag (call it camping if you want) and someone shoots law from under and i go flying. i dont think thats very realistic and combined with lag, it sux0rz.

well wouldn't you think a law could go through a stone floor? it could take out a tank...i think

I think this would be good. Nice pictures.
As far as realism goes, if the polygon is not affected by the explosion, then it does not really make sense for the explosion to be able to affect things behind the poly.

wow how pathetic....i though suggestions that were already existed should not be allowed in! i had that same idea except i didn't waste too much of my tim drawing lil images cuz i hoped ppl understood.....did you try using search?

zyxstand calm down and don't worry :)

I really like this idea. On Avarax maps are thin walls so its DAMN annoying when some1 shoot to wall and u fly off :\

btw nice pics :D

quote:Originally posted by dascoowell wouldn't you think a law could go through a stone floor? it could take out a tank...i think

I think yes, because it's an anti-tank weapon and if i remember right, it pierces the armor, and then blows up.

yeah ieh like tis'

to hard to make i think, though, ..

lol
Doesn't look like anyone read my post... :-P
And yea, 'LAW = Light Anti-tank Weapon (Google it).

quote:Originally posted by Keron Cystlol
Doesn't look like anyone read my post... :-P
And yea, 'LAW = Light Anti-tank Weapon (Google it).

Heh, maybe it's too long.
*offtopic*
OMG another is going to have 666 posts.

Unless the grenades work like bullets(maybe fragmentation), this would not work.

I dont have 666 posts anymore ;)
anyway I like the Idea, and the secksy pictures

quote:Originally posted by DeMonIcbesides, explosive weapons gain their strenght from being able to harm people over obstacles, so it would be a major nerf for M79, Law and grenades.

You don't often see someone use the m79 to shoot people that are on the other side of a poligon. Scenery, on the other hand shouldn't be blocking explosions. Anything that a player can't pass through should block explosions, and vice versa.

It wouldn't be hard to implement. People rarely complained about this so I didn't change it. Maybe I can make this.

but MM, wouldn't this mean that you'd have to make it particle-based which would definitely increase the lag of all servers for every explosion there is? though i'd have to say it just might be worth it!

A too thin wall and collider should not block an explosion for gameplay sake. It's not FPS, you can take up a position with da uber 2d view. Everybody doesn't like to blow and sometimes toss a camping dude with nade and to shoot at him in the air?

but regurlary thin walls should. and right now they dont. TY if u implement this Michal.

I like it the way it is... Because the explosion waves can move across things and harm people.

But that's unrealistic, and isn't it annoying if it happens to you?...

Must post quickly after this o.O'

quote:Originally posted by Michal MarcinkowskiIt wouldn't be hard to implement. People rarely complained about this so I didn't change it. Maybe I can make this.


God no! I love abusing it! Jungle and Shau would lose their meaning :(

Set it for certain maps, then xD

u disagree with MM Captain Ben? :O

omg but like a law, grenades and an m79, and a barrett are most likely to go through thin walls...omg new idea use weapons to make holes in certain walls....like vey thin ones.

dascoo: destructable poligons = old. That's a completely different deal, and much more complicated.

quote:Originally posted by Psychou disagree with MM Captain Ben? :O


MM himself didn't think of changing it because no one complained about it.

I do not agree with this. Certain bugs are part of the fun too. It takes so skill to use this well too.

lol
*thinks of ctf_Death*
I still don't know how to get on the roof :-/

Plant up some nades and walk against the wall all the time. It's easy.

quote:Originally posted by Keron CystBut that's unrealistic, and isn't it annoying if it happens to you?...

Must post quickly after this o.O'

No, that isn't annoying for me because I don't care if I die

It's your own fault if you die from it. As if you wouldn't move when you're leaning against a thin poly where a m79 user is taking potshots at you from the other side.

*thumbs up* Nice idea. And it wouldn't be that hard to implement it, I think.

This is something I would like because I don't like when someone shoots at me at the other side of the polly and i fly away... it's annoying.

i actually find this fun, blowing ppl sky-high.

lol...i dont see why not doing this...
fine idea to me