Skip to content
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

Sideways Crusher should not insta-kill players #3024

Open
Rusty-Box opened this issue Jul 17, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #3047
Open

Sideways Crusher should not insta-kill players #3024

Rusty-Box opened this issue Jul 17, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #3047

Comments

@Rusty-Box
Copy link
Member

A normal Crusher when crushing the player will only hurt them. Sideways Crushers on the other hand kill the player instantaneously when they get crushed at a wall. This is rather unfair as well as inconsistent amongst Crushers thus should be changed

TL;DR - When a player gets hit/crushed by a sideways Crusher, instead of dying instantly, they should only get hurt (i.e. loose a powerup and only die when hit as small Tux)

@tobbi
Copy link
Member

tobbi commented Jul 21, 2024

You could argue that any other thing crushing tux horizontally shouldn't kill tux, like moving tilemaps, no?

@Rusty-Box
Copy link
Member Author

Rusty-Box commented Jul 21, 2024

Not really. Crushers are enemies of which none should really have a one hit insta kill move. Second of all, a tilemap doesn't behave neccesarily like a crusher. A crusher goes back to it orignal position. A tilemap, depending on how the path is set up, will literally crush you as it will not leave room or go back to where it was. In that case you would either get pushed into the ground/wall or get pushed into the tilemap in question.

So if you ask me, those two cannot be compared here really

@tobbi tobbi linked a pull request Aug 21, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants