would you like wallbanging?
Offline
Forum
CS2D General would you like wallbanging?
Poll
would you like wallbanging?
Only registered users are allowed to vote
| yes | 67.44% (29) | |
| no | 32.56% (14) |
43 votes cast
Phenixtri has written
I really agree with you there... making a already "quite new" entity have a option for this wouldn't ruin backwards compatability in maps, at least not very much, unless programmed that way. Anyways, the idea of Func_DynWall having a "WallBang" option would be quite epic.as an option for dynamic walls yes but not for the basic tile set walls. Thus this would limit the hack wankers ability to abuse it.
It would only affect the "Wall" itself as in being hard and strong no bullets penetrate it, but this option would disable it or absorb 50% of the bullets that goes through it in order to minimize the damage to players/bots/hostages on the other side. The idea is to shoot through this "wall" basicly, it will be more "Counter-Strike" realistic that way. This would actually be a fun idea... shooting through wall and then the damage of the shots through the wall will be set lower than actual damage or perhaps even made as a seperate option (custom wallbang damage [cwbd]). I like the idea.
especially due to the fact that walls are ALWAYS 32x32 pixels in CS2D, which is pretty thick. no regular firearm shoots through something like this. it would just look and feel very strange and wrong.
so this feature would require another feature: walls that are not 32x32 pixel thick. but the engine has not been created to support something like this. it's a simple 32x32 grid. this is a basic rule in the CS2D universe which should not be broken, because all internal optimizations and algorithms are based on it.
my conclusion: chances are very low that this will be implemented. chances that this will be implemented for the next release: 0%
DC has written
I always hated the ability to shoot through walls in CS. I'm not planning to implement it in CS2D.
especially due to the fact that walls are ALWAYS 32x32 pixels in CS2D, which is pretty thick. no regular firearm shoots through something like this. it would just look and feel very strange and wrong.
especially due to the fact that walls are ALWAYS 32x32 pixels in CS2D, which is pretty thick. no regular firearm shoots through something like this. it would just look and feel very strange and wrong.
i dont think it will feel strange at all.
and if 32x32 looks too thick you can easily modify the wall tiles
well i hope u respect the opinions of the community here..
Quote
and if 32x32 looks too thick you can easily modify the wall tiles
you could do this but it is no acceptable solution because of many reasons:
wall shadows will look fucked up because they expect walls to be 32x32 pixels impact fx will look misplaced because the game doesn't understand that your wall is not 32x32 pixels. fog of war might also look bad it will be strange because your player will be stopped before he reaches the actual wall graphic grenades will bounce off before they hit the wall graphic and much more... Quote
well i hope u respect the opinions of the community here..
do you think there would be a forum if I wouldn't respect the community and the opinions of the users? do you think I would read most of the stuff here if I wouldn't respect the users?
this decision is not about respecting anything, it's about logic and reasonability. I'll not implement stuff that doesn't work or will appear in a strange and misplaced way. this feature doesn't work / doesn't make sense for the CS2D engine.
DC has written
you could do this but it is no acceptable solution because of many reasons:
wall shadows will look fucked up because they expect walls to be 32x32 pixels
impact fx will look misplaced because the game doesn't understand that your wall is not 32x32 pixels.
fog of war might also look bad
do you think there would be a forum if I wouldn't respect the community and the opinions of the users? do you think I would read most of the stuff here if I wouldn't respect the users?
this decision is not about respecting anything, it's about logic and reasonability. I'll not implement stuff that doesn't work or will appear in a strange and misplaced way...
Quote
and if 32x32 looks too thick you can easily modify the wall tiles
you could do this but it is no acceptable solution because of many reasons:
wall shadows will look fucked up because they expect walls to be 32x32 pixels impact fx will look misplaced because the game doesn't understand that your wall is not 32x32 pixels. fog of war might also look bad Quote
well i hope u respect the opinions of the community here..
do you think there would be a forum if I wouldn't respect the community and the opinions of the users? do you think I would read most of the stuff here if I wouldn't respect the users?
this decision is not about respecting anything, it's about logic and reasonability. I'll not implement stuff that doesn't work or will appear in a strange and misplaced way...
i dont think you understand what i meant by the modified tiles.
example:
each # represents 8x8 dark pixels
each < represents 8x8 light pixels
original tiles:
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
new "thin" tiles:
#### ####
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
you'll need a lot more in the tileset but it's possible to make it look fine...
FlooD has written
i dont think you understand what i meant by the modified tiles.
example:
each # represents 8x8 dark pixels
each < represents 8x8 light pixels
original tiles:
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
new "thin" tiles:
#### ####
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
example:
each # represents 8x8 dark pixels
each < represents 8x8 light pixels
original tiles:
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
#### ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
<<<< ####
new "thin" tiles:
#### ####
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
<<<< <<<#
We will NEVER understand when you talk like this, atleast make a example, so we see what you mean.
Yates has written
We will NEVER understand when you talk like this, atleast make a example, so we see what you mean.
k working on it
however I think you didn't understand what I was talking about or you just didn't read it properly because you were so sure that I didn't understand you.
please also note that I edited (extended) my post while you were responding.
I'll show you an image (showing just 2 of the points I listed above):
http://85.214.102.60/whythinwallsdontwork.jpg
you see the problem now?
sure.. you can disable the shadows but the position where bullets and grenades hit the wall can not be changed.
again:
just changing the wall graphics to be thin: bad and dirty solution, inacceptable results and sideeffects changing the "physics"/"collision area" as well: will not happen because the whole engine is based on the 32x32 pixel tiles principle - as I already explained. But I agree, the invisible border thing would just look weird.
Time has written
invisible border thing
FORCE FIELD!
Nah, seriously, when I had to make thin walls, I made 2 thin walls, each is on the side of the 32x32 border. So, something like this:
O = Wall
X = Nothing
OXXO
OXXO
OXXO
OXXO
Then I put in a fake shadow for the left one, and used a real one for the right one. Total success
loooser has written
a possible solution would be to double the tiles that means instead of one 32*32 make 4 16*16 tiles. wouldnt be just cool for "wallbanging" it also gives a map maker more freedom and the difficulty of the game would also increase
True, more tiles, more details.
@Danikah: that doesn't really change anything...
anyway... your main issue with it is: would having bullets go through walls look weird?
you think it would look crazy, but i think it would look perfectly fine. so what do other people think?
My happy face was ironic there.
I guess this idea is kind of buried, DC already told that it would cause mishaps. I bury this idea, lol. =(
Only if DC made something in map editor where you can make bullets go through with a nice effect.
Some tile walls are not made for it..
so this "fix" is completely useless when talking about "wallbanging" because in this case you want to have thin walls that you shoot at from BOTH sides! they do not lead into the void but players can stand at both sides of them and they can shoot at them from both sides - which leads to those ugly problems at one side minimum.
and yeah.. being able to shoot through massive 32x32 pixels walls would just be very odd (no player would expect that to work).
DC has written
@Danikah: that doesn't really change anything...
ಠ_ಠ
DC has written
and yeah.. being able to shoot through massive 32x32 pixels walls would just be very odd
That's not odd. Minecraft's dispenser can do that. With arrows. Through a massive 1 meter wide stone block. With ease.
Also, it's wonderful how we get from wallbanging to shooting through everything.
I think it would be enough to make a new entity called for example "shootthru" and you could set:
- what sound it would play when shot through it (like the breakable blocks)
- how big is the chance to shoot through it.
& note that this is b4 any wallbang system would or could be implemented.
But im thinking that in the dynamic wall/obstical & regular wall/obstical system there should be at least 2-3 varying wall thicknesses that can be rotated in 90 degree angles to fit all 4 side of the 32x32 tile space.
For example default wall thickness will be still 32x32
the thick wall would be 30x30
the medium wall would be 20x20
& the thin wall would be 10x10
This would mean that each individual wall would have to have its own wall & obstical shadow added to the existing CS2D shadows.
Only after this could you begin creating a wallbang system which wouldnt be too difficult.
But in my opinion implementing such a wall thickness system & then later implementing optional wallbang via the dynamic walls would greatly improved CS2Ds gameplay & map quality.