Bug - A weird yellow emerald behaviour

Found a bug in R'n'D? Report it here!

Moderators: Flumminator, Zomis

Post Reply
Arno
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:10 pm

Bug - A weird yellow emerald behaviour

Post by Arno »

I've found a glitch that happens, when a player dies to a custom element that immediately removes his emeralds.

A custom element changes when anything touches it. When player's yellow emeralds appear, one of them is actually floating :x . A weird invisible element got created and when ce 1 tries to replace it, it explodes. You gotta download this file, to believe!
Attachments
Game Bug.zip
(634 Bytes) Downloaded 150 times
User avatar
Holger
Site Admin
Posts: 4081
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:13 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Bug - A weird yellow emerald behaviour

Post by Holger »

Zombie alarm!! :lol:

The "weird invisible element" you described is in fact an undead player! :shock:

It gets created because the player explosion is interrupted by the CE creating a new element at the player explosion's position in "destructive" mode (replacing anything destructible at that playfield position). So the explosion is removed halfway, leaving an undead, invisible "ghost player" at the same position occupied by the newly placed game element, preventing the yellow emerald above to fall down (even if the new element is empty space -- the "ghost player" is still there, keeping the yellow emerald above in place).

This bug (interrupting a player's explosion that way) should have never happened -- fixed now!

Thanks a lot for reporting this bug! :)

BTW: During debugging of this bug, I found another bug connected with such situations. You can trigger it when removing the "deadly when touching" property from CE 001, and touching it again: It will cause a player explosion (as expected, because it forces an unwalkable game element at the player's position), but this explosion looks buggy, as it gets restarted when half of the explosion is done, then finally doing the full explosion. It does not seem to have further negative consequences, but is just not correct, so I have fixed this one, too.
Post Reply