Zandronum

Discussion thread for FNF #167 on May 24th.

---

Some stuff already on the table:

Team terminator
Uptightdm
32in24-8
atf? (might still have that crash thing)
freezetag

hell yes to freezetag

Hmm, I might be tempted to fix freezetag by Friday to include proximity based thawing and a local hudmessage. Depends how lazy I'm not feeling.

Hypnotoad wrote: Hmm, I might be tempted to fix freezetag by Friday to include proximity based thawing and a local hudmessage. Depends how lazy I'm not feeling.

I'd help with this if you need.

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote: Hmm, I might be tempted to fix freezetag by Friday to include proximity based thawing and a local hudmessage. Depends how lazy I'm not feeling.

I'd help with this if you need.

If you could think of a way to display "thawprogress" (which is basically their health minus 60) for individual frozen players as you unthaw them, despite frozen players on one team sharing a single tid between them, that would be great. I've been able to get proximity based thawing working.

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote: Hmm, I might be tempted to fix freezetag by Friday to include proximity based thawing and a local hudmessage. Depends how lazy I'm not feeling.

I'd help with this if you need.

If you could think of a way to display "thawprogress" (which is basically their health minus 60) for individual frozen players as you unthaw them, despite frozen players on one team sharing a single tid between them, that would be great. I've been able to get proximity based thawing working.

Well you could always do it by PlayerNumber, right?

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote: Hmm, I might be tempted to fix freezetag by Friday to include proximity based thawing and a local hudmessage. Depends how lazy I'm not feeling.

I'd help with this if you need.

If you could think of a way to display "thawprogress" (which is basically their health minus 60) for individual frozen players as you unthaw them, despite frozen players on one team sharing a single tid between them, that would be great. I've been able to get proximity based thawing working.

Well you could always do it by PlayerNumber, right?

Well the "hudmessageonactor" function needs an actor tid, it doesn't work with playernumber. But even if I did this without hudmessageonactor and just had it display on my screen when i'm in a certain range of them, I need an actor tid to retrieve health information.

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote:
I'd help with this if you need.

If you could think of a way to display "thawprogress" (which is basically their health minus 60) for individual frozen players as you unthaw them, despite frozen players on one team sharing a single tid between them, that would be great. I've been able to get proximity based thawing working.

Well you could always do it by PlayerNumber, right?

Well the "hudmessageonactor" function needs an actor tid, it doesn't work with playernumber. But even if I did this without hudmessageonactor and just had it display on my screen when i'm in a certain range of them, I need an actor tid to retrieve health information.

Crap.

Why do all of one team's frozen players have to have the same TID?

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:
If you could think of a way to display "thawprogress" (which is basically their health minus 60) for individual frozen players as you unthaw them, despite frozen players on one team sharing a single tid between them, that would be great. I've been able to get proximity based thawing working.

Well you could always do it by PlayerNumber, right?

Well the "hudmessageonactor" function needs an actor tid, it doesn't work with playernumber. But even if I did this without hudmessageonactor and just had it display on my screen when i'm in a certain range of them, I need an actor tid to retrieve health information.

Crap.

Why do all of one team's frozen players have to have the same TID?

So I can do things like this:

if (GetTeamProperty(1, TPROP_NumLivePlayers) == ThingCount (T_NONE, FROZENRED_TID))
{
roundover=1;
delay(1);
SetPlayerProperty(FROZENRED_TID, 0, PROP_TOTALLYFROZEN);
SetActorProperty(FROZENRED_TID, APROP_RenderStyle, STYLE_normal);
Thing_destroy(FROZENRED_TID, 1, 0);
//printbold(s:"402");
}

among other functions. I'd have to rewrite the scripts if everyone were to have a unique TID, and it would make things a lot harder.

I would give all nonfrozen red players TID 2000-2063, and all nonfrozen blue players 3000-3063. Frozen red players would be 2100-2163, and frozen blues would be 3100-3163.

Then just rewrite your property-setting scripts to use FOR loops.

Ænima wrote: I would give all nonfrozen red players TID 2000-2063, and all nonfrozen blue players 3000-3063. Frozen red players would be 2100-2163, and frozen blues would be 3100-3163.

Then just rewrite your property-setting scripts to use FOR loops.

Maybe, but I'm using for loops and such elsewhere, I'm worried about using up too much bandwidth with all these iterations going on at once.

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote: I would give all nonfrozen red players TID 2000-2063, and all nonfrozen blue players 3000-3063. Frozen red players would be 2100-2163, and frozen blues would be 3100-3163.

Then just rewrite your property-setting scripts to use FOR loops.

Maybe, but I'm using for loops and such elsewhere, I'm worried about using up too much bandwidth with all these iterations going on at once.

Nah don't worry about it. For loops are pretty insignificant when it comes to bandwidth usage, unless it has to go through like 4000 cycles. But 64 should be no problemo.

Wouldn't everything in the for loop stay on the server anyway?

Ænima wrote:

Hypnotoad wrote:

Ænima wrote: I would give all nonfrozen red players TID 2000-2063, and all nonfrozen blue players 3000-3063. Frozen red players would be 2100-2163, and frozen blues would be 3100-3163.

Then just rewrite your property-setting scripts to use FOR loops.

Maybe, but I'm using for loops and such elsewhere, I'm worried about using up too much bandwidth with all these iterations going on at once.

Nah don't worry about it. For loops are pretty insignificant when it comes to bandwidth usage, unless it has to go through like 4000 cycles. But 64 should be no problemo.

Well I did it. Anything else freezetag needs?

ACS is executed on one peer only so only effective changes like action specials or stuff is transmitted across the network. A for-loop uses zero bandwidth.