[Not a bug] APROP_Invulnerable and manikins

[The Ultimate DooMer]

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

[Ultraviolet]

MANNEQUINS you mean?

[SargeBaldy]

actually he means voodoo dolls :P

[Cyb]

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

[HotWax]

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.

[Ultraviolet]

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.

[Graf Zahl]

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

[randi]

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.

[cccp_leha]

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?

[The Ultimate DooMer]

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)

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.

[Graf Zahl]

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.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

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

(is this a new bug?)