New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[4.2.019] FT — Second (third, …) person thawing someone sees the wrong thaw percentage #93
Comments
Pretty interesting feature :P |
I can't reproduce this. Are there any special circumstances that cause it? |
^ Updated the title and the bug description. Sorry about the confusion :3 |
Should I make it so that you can't thaw somebody who's already being thawed? Or should we somehow allow multiple people to speed-thaw the same person? |
The latter, just like several people healing someone speeds up the process. Denying you the ability to thaw altogether would just be confusing and evil IMHO. (Although you could somehow make it clear with a graphic or something.) How to handle the thaw points though? Possibly everyone participating could get a point, dunno… |
+1 for multiple thaw but wont be hard to show thaw bar to every client in proper way? |
Healing a frozen player speeds up the thawing by 1% for every 1% of health, but the percentage shown on the thaw bar doesn’t account for this, i.e. a player healed to the full 90% thaws when the bar reaches 60%.EDIT 2014-09-18: Frozen player’s health does not affect the thaw speed.
What this bug is really about: When someone is already thawing the player you’re attempting to thaw, you will still see your thaw bar start from 0% and of course disappear whenever the player thaws, giving the impression that 1) you were thawing them and 2) it took much less time than it should have. (During my testing I just stumbled into this situation several times in a row, with such timing that I saw the teammate thaw at 60% each time.)
BTW, two or more players thawing someone does not speed up the process either, only the first player to start the thaw counts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: