[Not a bug] APROP_Invulnerable and manikins

Forum rules
Please don't bump threads here if you have a problem - it will often be forgotten about if you do. Instead, make a new thread here.

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :geek: :ugeek: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :3: :wub: >:( :blergh:
View more smilies

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [Not a bug] APROP_Invulnerable and manikins

by The Ultimate DooMer » Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:20 am

I've put the script in and they're invincible, but now I can't move them!

(is this a new bug?)

by Graf Zahl » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:27 pm

cccp_leha wrote:This means that to render the player invulnerable, I have to use setActorProperty() and not setPlayerProperty()? While on the subject, what is the difference between using either of the two on the player?

They manipulate completely different properties and have nothing in common.

by The Ultimate DooMer » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:01 pm

Does this mean we can do other things to manikins, like Thing_Destroy etc.?

(btw, I heard the term when playing AD&D once, when the DM was referring to hand-sized dolls we'd all gotten, so that's why I call them that)
cccp_leha wrote:This means that to render the player invulnerable, I have to use setActorProperty() and not setPlayerProperty()? While on the subject, what is the difference between using either of the two on the player?
There isn't a player property for invulnerable.

by cccp_leha » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:56 pm

This means that to render the player invulnerable, I have to use setActorProperty() and not setPlayerProperty()? While on the subject, what is the difference between using either of the two on the player?

Re: APROP_Invulnerable and manikins

by randi » Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:44 pm

The Ultimate DooMer wrote:I found this today when playing SSD with 2.0.53: APROP_Invulnerable does not protect against damage done to you by hitting manikins.
That's because you need to make the voodoo doll invulnerable, too. Invulnerability is no match against voodoo unless the doll is protected.

Using the next ZDoom with enter scripts fixed, you can do this by giving the voodoo dolls the same TID as the player:

Code: Select all

script 1 enter
{
    Thing_ChangeTID (0, PlayerNumber()+1);
}
and then when you want the player to be invulnerable, use the TID instead of 0:

Code: Select all

SetActorProperty (PlayerNumber()+1, APROP_Invulnerable, TRUE);
Change the +1 to whatever you like if you're aready using TIDs 1-8 for something else.

by Graf Zahl » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:54 am

Come on, he's doing this on purpose because he knows perfectly well that no one else likes it! ;)

by Ultraviolet » Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:53 pm

I'm sher mannikin was a bulshit lazy-ass spelling made up for ppl hoo didn't wanna put forth the efort to lurn it right. Certain words come to be accepted as correct because the English language is DEGRADING.

by HotWax » Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:07 pm

Cyb wrote:manikin is an acceptable spelling: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=manikin

of course nobody at all calls them that, they've been called voodoo dolls by everyone since whoever discovered them
Mannequins (or manikins if you prefer) don't inflict damage on someone else when they're hurt. "Voodoo Doll" seems like a more appropriate term for the player-duplicates. :)

by Cyb » Tue Nov 18, 2003 9:17 pm

manikin is an acceptable spelling: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=manikin

of course nobody at all calls them that, they've been called voodoo dolls by everyone since whoever discovered them

by SargeBaldy » Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:12 pm

actually he means voodoo dolls :P

by Ultraviolet » Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:47 pm

MANNEQUINS you mean?

APROP_Invulnerable and manikins

by The Ultimate DooMer » Tue Nov 18, 2003 10:57 am

I found this today when playing SSD with 2.0.53: APROP_Invulnerable does not protect against damage done to you by hitting manikins.

Top