Invulnerable ball doesn't give players invulnerability

1
Invulnerability = resistance to damage, knockback and other movement restrictions, but players with invulnerability ball are not immune to:
All knockback;
AT-ST explosion damage and knockback;
Emplaced gun shots and probably explosions(you can kill defense on Obj1 on Nar Shadda);
Self damage(after respawn your teammate can step on your mine or enemy demp your mine);
Probably entities like func_breakable with "splashDamage" flag.

Unsure why it isn't fixed in 2017. Self damage and AT-ST lame is pretty annoying.

Re: Invulnerable ball doesn't give players invulnerability

2
There are two things here: (1) self-damage ignoring greenshield, and (2) "neutral" damage ignoring greenshield.

(1) Self-damage: this appears intentional; Raven did want you to be able to self-damage through greenshield. There is a specific check to make sure that you can damage yourself with greenshield. Whether or not they considered this happening with mines placed during the previous spawn in a small siege objective area...I don't know.

(2) "Neutral" damage: I think this is actually a bug. The poor way in which the "allow self-damage to ignore greenshield" code was written allows "neutral" damage to ignore green shield. For any coders, Raven was trying to avoid a null pointer exception at https://github.com/deathsythe47/base_en ... at.c#L5157 - the line

Code: Select all

attacker && attacker->client && targ != attacker
should be written as

Code: Select all

!(attacker && attacker->client && targ == attacker)

Re: Invulnerable ball doesn't give players invulnerability

4
I don't know. I would say block all damage up until a certain point. If you are dumb enough to leave the atst in the middle of spawn, you are just asking to be lamed. Like, give the green shield hp. Say 500-1000hp. Allow the player to be immune to all damage/knockback up until the damage intake exceeds 500-1000hp. I really don't think Raven thought...about anything when developing siege, so the unintentional/intentional argument is rather unfounded.
cron