[Closed] Glow during positive Spawn Protection
Hi XP-XPerts,
currently the yellow protection glow is only shown when the "Spawn Protection" configuration value is lower 0 (aka "Shield Protection" is enabled).
We would like to suggest to show this protection glow also in case the "Spawn Protection" value is greater 0 (aka "Dual way protection" is enabled).
Background:
In our opinion an attacker needs to get a chance to see that his most beloved next victim is currently under protection and it's not worth attacking her right now. Otherwise killing this (protected) victim results in confusion because the kill does effectively not result in a score point (kill).
What do you think about it?
Thanks a lot and best regards,
[BSE]J.Creutzfeldt
yes good idea
i guess this wont change a damn thing beside the fact that people wait for somebody's spawn protection to wear off which makes the kill a 50 50 chance - as long as killing is no tactical purpose.
for me it would not change anything .. i would still kill you now, then to wait for the time to pass.. + yellow/glowing enemies are good for my crosshair
why to wait and maybe get killed after that..? i can kill you now, wont get the +1 score but i'll feel more safe
_________
epsislow
make a poll ! thats easiest and best way and at end we see if people like or dont like it ;>
its a good improvement: some like it and all who dislike it agree at least that it wont change anything for them
so it has no negative impact but a positive one for some other guys.. there seems no reason to not do it (if your(developers) workload allows for it)
all who dislike it agree at least that it wont change anything for them
perk you're sentence it's illogical because you can't say NO and be neutral in the same time.. you either are Neutral (unbiased) or Negative (biased to NO)
so the guys that say NO cant agree that they are Neutral in the same time.
For me : i didn't said i dislike it .. i said it won't change anything for me . meaning i'm neutral with this.
please don't cross them up
so it has no negative impact but a positive one for some
other guys.. there seems no reason to not do it (if your(developers)
workload allows for it)
And your conclusion is too early with a very big error interval, because you don't have enough information to make an correct and logical assumption. And i mean with this that you've read only 6 replys and all were positive or neutral .. no negative one till now. Most of the e+ community didn't even came from work (in Europe) and some are still sleeping in US ..
Same Statistical error can be done in the following statistic situation:
Throw a coin 4 times and if you get 4 times on the emblem side (obverse).. this gets you to the idea that the coin will always get on the emblem side (obverse)... no Wrong .. throw it 100000 times and you'll see it has almost 50%/50% chances to get one or the other side. ^_^
_______
math.epsilon()
for all who dislike...it dont change a shit for them its like before, only better it have only positive changes (like perk said).all who think it changes it in a negative way are maybe stupid or handicapped or idk......
perk you're sentence it's illogical because you can't say NO and be neutral in the same time.. you either are Neutral (unbiased) or Negative (biased to NO)
no its not.. you fell for a false dichotomy
all who dislike it agree at least that it wont change anything for them
"for them" means they can reject it in on other grounds.. for example: there are more pressing issues at hand, like bugfixing or cheatprotection, you can dislike featurerequests and still agree that your gameplayexperience wouldnt suffer directly from the implementation
yes my "all" was streched a bit to far but i thought my post was still managable to understand
And your conclusion is too early with a very big error interval, because you don't have enough information to make an correct and logical assumption.
logic is the way to draw conclusions not to weight the data... my conclusion from the little factual basis there was was correct and logical, but of curse the picture could change later due to more people posting on the topic
Same Statistical error can be done in the following statistic situation:
Throw a coin 4 times and if you get 4 times on the emblem side (obverse).. this gets you to the idea that the coin will always get on the emblem side (obverse)... no Wrong .. throw it 100000 times and you'll see it has almost 50%/50% chances to get one or the other side. ^_^
dont play that game on me just dont.. if all you said: "wait a bit longer with your conclusion because some other people could prove you wrong" i would have agreed.. but trying to outsmart me and finding wrong errors about my post which are easyly debunked.. just offends me
and i say it again: yes my "all" was to much.. but i value skulls opinion here because of his activity and impact in a way that led me to the impression that when he is not negative affected it can be implemented
that there are still no posts against it kind of shows that my sense for a closeable case wasnt so wrong after all ...
nah man relax .. i said only to wait a bit longer to get more data for a good conclusion that's all .. you should know that i don't try to outsmart anyone
i did mistakes in my post too hihi
i was bored at work on this hot friday (38 C).. so i wrote somestuff just to pass the time
____________
epsislow
it would allow people to spawn kill more effectively. Not only would they know you just spawned, they also know exactly when it wears off. Thus what would be a spawn kill giving 0 death or kill points now has an even better chance of being a valid kill. This idea destroys the purpose of spawn protection in many ways, considering the short amount of time someone is spawn protected. Now if the spawn protection was longer, that would be a nice idea.