1.8 Deflection/bounce - Yes or No?
Posted: 14-07-2003 21:12
Do you like the new 1.8 implentation of deflections/bounce?
Notpron Forums
1.8 Deflection/bounce - Yes or No?
Page 1 of 6
Posted: 14-07-2003 21:17
I agree with DavidM, people should give new features a couple of days to settle in. Then deside if you like it or not.
Posted: 14-07-2003 21:21
What is there to like about random features that sway towards luck rather than skill?
I closed down a keeper today twice, and would have caught the ball from his attempted clearance both times. But instead the keeper was let off, and the ball flew right across the map. So because I owned the keeper, the OTHER team nearly scored.
That is good why?
I closed down a keeper today twice, and would have caught the ball from his attempted clearance both times. But instead the keeper was let off, and the ball flew right across the map. So because I owned the keeper, the OTHER team nearly scored.
That is good why?
Posted: 14-07-2003 21:45
its not good, end of story 
Posted: 14-07-2003 22:21
its an ok idea in theory.
sucks nuts in practice
sucks nuts in practice
Posted: 14-07-2003 22:35
i laughed myself silly when i first saw it, ball just vanished outta play, after about the 3rd-4th time it was just getting stupid 
Posted: 14-07-2003 23:26
who was the one person who voted for 'yes'?
davidm... was that you? :p
davidm... was that you? :p
Posted: 14-07-2003 23:29
it just needs to be tweaked so the power is less than how hard it hit u.
it's stupid flying off like that.
it's stupid flying off like that.
Posted: 15-07-2003 00:04
So the ball isnt deflected in a manner similar to the 'soft vollies' from earlier DB releases?
Beware ppl... There is an automatic, giant invisible volley gun surrounding your player model! o_O
Beware ppl... There is an automatic, giant invisible volley gun surrounding your player model! o_O
Posted: 15-07-2003 00:37
the problem is not the bounce, it is the fact that DB uses catch radii opposed to the actual models hitboxes to catch the ball. This is very simply because bigger model = bigger advantage.
Maybe if we got a modeler for DB to make models then we could use actual hitboxes of the models opposed to this bogus radius.
If this was implemented you could also make vareying delays for pickuing up the ball with different parts of the model and such. legs could be .2 seconds longer to gun change than the arms and torso. You could also make the ball bounce off if you are hit in the back by making a very complex model which would make it so you cant just catch passes on the fly through your back (which is stupid).
It would also get rid of keeper suction BS.
Maybe if we got a modeler for DB to make models then we could use actual hitboxes of the models opposed to this bogus radius.
If this was implemented you could also make vareying delays for pickuing up the ball with different parts of the model and such. legs could be .2 seconds longer to gun change than the arms and torso. You could also make the ball bounce off if you are hit in the back by making a very complex model which would make it so you cant just catch passes on the fly through your back (which is stupid).
It would also get rid of keeper suction BS.
Posted: 15-07-2003 00:54
yeah, i've always wanted per poly collision but aswell as the problem of size u mentioned, people with high pings would find playing nearly impossible.
Posted: 15-07-2003 04:44
not necessaraly... they could very easily make catching client side which although sounds bad, wouldnt be too crucial and would be fair to everyone no matter what ping because the server would make you run choppy with high ping anyways.
Posted: 15-07-2003 05:05
good thinking.
client side might work, or be very annoying. ^^
does ut2k3 support per poly collision for anything other than static meshes though?
client side might work, or be very annoying. ^^
does ut2k3 support per poly collision for anything other than static meshes though?
Posted: 15-07-2003 09:42
One thing I forgot to mention: instances of the ball going through people and shoot/volley bugs have gone through the roof. The only major change between 1.7 and 1.8 is deflections. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted: 15-07-2003 13:05
Maybe....if it wasn't so extreme