DescentBB

Behemoth wrote:its a part of descent get over it

I'm with Behe...

Krom wrote:What part isn't correct? The odds of a fusion bug on a LAN with accurates are still dramatically lower then online. For one it is harder for lag to cause two ships to occupy the same location at the same time which is the primary trigger for the fusion bug, and because ships occupy much less space with accurates enabled. I've been killed hundreds of times online by the fusion bug, but I can't even recall it happening even once on a LAN.

First, the bounding box vs. sphere results in a reduced chance, not a dramatically reduced chance. The difference would be the difference between the cubic volume of both.

Sphere Volume = 4/3*PI*R^3
vs.
Box volume = (2*r)^3

So, for a radius of 1 unit, you get...

Sphere Volume = 4.1887902047863909846168578443727
Box volume = 8

This result in a probability of 52% for the sphere vs. the bounding box. Hardly a dramatically reduced rate.

Next,

Lag has nothing to do with it. The ships do not have to share the same location, they need to both be within the fusion's radius.

Last,

You say you've never experienced this issue on LAN, so I guess making it optional for LAN is moot.

Foil...

The code for the fusion bug fix is highly efficient and integrated into AC. It wouldn't be impossible to make it optional, just a PITA.


Finally,

I have no intentions of removing a bug fix. I will be happy to answer other questions, comments, but this has simply boiled down to a ★■◆● fest.

And on a lighter note...

VonVulcan wrote:And on a lighter note...

Descent is all about bugs that become apparently \"indispensable\" to the game... or doesn't anyone remember tri-chording? ;)

SuperSheep wrote:The code for the fusion bug fix is highly efficient and integrated into AC. It wouldn't be impossible to make it optional, just a PITA.

Don't let him fool you... He just doesn't want to make it 'optional' in any way. We had this discussion before he ever wrote code to "fix" the fusion bug. If he wrote the code in such a fashion that it would be a pain in the ass to change, he did it on purpose. He flat didn't want it to be optional. He still doesn't. End of Story.

I'm sure he'd "fix" trichording too if this were D1.

Foil wrote:...However, in the unlikely event the demand for making it optional grows beyond the couple of people here...

Oh? Look here. I count at least 11 people who agree with ME on this subject according to this poll, back in September of last year.

That's why I say it should be optional.

WarAdvocat wrote:Don't let him fool you... He just doesn't want to make it 'optional' in any way. We had this discussion before he ever wrote code to "fix" the fusion bug. If he wrote the code in such a fashion that it would be a pain in the ass to change, he did it on purpose. He flat didn't want it to be optional. He still doesn't. End of Story.

I'm sure he'd "fix" trichording too if this were D1.

Foil wrote:...However, in the unlikely event the demand for making it optional grows beyond the couple of people here...

Oh? Look here. I count at least 11 people who agree with ME on this subject according to this poll, back in September of last year.

That's why I say it should be optional.

Who am I trying to fool? [sarcasm]All those people I tell I'm not going to make it optional?[/sarcasm]

I wrote the code that way so it had as little impact as possible on the server. Not to make it impossible to remove as I never had any question in my mind that it would be removed and I still feel that way.

So glad you know me so well. Perhaps since you're such an authority on how I think, perhaps you can tell me what will happen tomorrow. No wait...I'll bet you'll come in here telling me how I think again. lol.

End of story? Really? You promise!!

You're sure I'd fix trichording eh? That's funny. I in no way view a bug that causes huge bursts of network traffic, is unpredictable as hell and is FPS/PPS dependant in even the same ballpark, let alone the same state as trichording which is highly predictable, easy for anyone to use even if they don't know about it and works the same regardless of FPS/PPS. Perhaps if you spent some time actually coding some yourself, you might understand how completely different these two things are.

And I count 22 people that disagree. But hey, let's only point out the 11 that sided with you.

You are barking up the wrong tree Bunhip. I told you then I had no thoughts of removing the bug fix or making a bug fix optional. Did you think perhaps if enough time went by, I'd forget? Nope, sorry, but I'm not going to remove it. If you want it removed, write your own AC and make it optional, or don't play on AC servers.

End of story.

SuperSheep wrote: Not to make it impossible to remove as I never had any question in my mind that it would be removed and I still feel that way.

How is reinforcing my point somehow a refutation of it? I do enjoy what passes for logic with some people. What next? God forbid some kind of personal attack?

SuperSheep wrote: So glad you know me so well. Perhaps since you're such an authority on how I think, perhaps you can tell me what will happen tomorrow.

surprise!

SuperSheep wrote:And I count 22 people that disagree. But hey, let's only point out the 11 that sided with you.

Oh look, another personal attack First, I was talking to Foil, answering his quoted statement. Don't try to make it into something it wasn't. I provided the source material. I ALSO understated the statistic as you well know. There were actually 13 people who agreed + 8 who were on the fence in one way or another. What's next? Another personal attack?

SuperSheep wrote: You are barking up the wrong tree Bunhip. I told you then I had no thoughts of removing the bug fix or making a bug fix optional.

Surprise! "Bunhip"?

SuperSheep wrote: Did you think perhaps if enough time went by, I'd forget? Nope, sorry, but I'm not going to remove it. If you want it removed, write your own AC and make it optional, or don't play on AC servers.

End of story.

Once again, how is reinforcing my point somehow a refutation of it? Oh and I didn't stuff the ballot box either...

Whatever. It's your software, and who would know better how to prevent cheating, than you eh? Puh-leeze, SuperSheep... or should I call you "SuperShip"?

Yippy, you need to learn the proper use of smileys and/or mark your sarkasm. Oh, and stop stirring up crap for fun Sheep said it's not gonna change it ever since it got into AC. Period. No reason to piss at each other. If you don't like it, play elsewhere and give it a rest. It's not gonna change (and as a programmer I 100% agree w/ that.)

I'd suggest to close this thread.

Edit: shortened.

Bunnyip, I quit trying in this thread because SuperSheep is a boulder, doesn't matter how fun it might be and how willing people are to accept the lag burst tradeoff, they won't move.

Krom: I'm not as smart as you are

Grendel: Hey I was answering the question. You wanna see me being sarcastic...you should see the first draft of my responses to you knuckleheads.

VonVulcan wrote:Granted I don't check to often but when I do I rarely see anyone playing in one... Very rarely... why?

I was voicing the several reasons why 'better' players don't like the SSAC. Not that I'm any great shakes, but by better I mean "those who can beat me consistently". Those "against" don't seem to usually fit in that category. Guess which category I would rather emulate.

Allow myself to quote...myself...

"[What if] the effect were preserved without the packet bursting?"


So the next question is: Why do you keep avoiding the actual question, which is "Why can't you fix the buggy bad packet bursts part and leave (or code-in an option for) the other part so that we can have the option to enjoy the gameplay aspect without the bad stuff, and without cheaters"?

I already know the answer, it's "we don't like it so there nya nya nyaa"...but I can hope.

Dude, the way the code is written causes chaotic behavior in these circumstances. Chaotic behavior not only the worst that can happen to this kind of program, it's also next to impossible to emulate. It may be possible to emulate the outcome, ie. apply multiple shield damage until the blast is through, but that's talking about some serious time spend coding. Plus, I wouldn't want to be in the position trying to explain to people why certain fusion blasts cause havoc w/o reason (you wouldn't get the \"clank\" or the ultra red damage indicator.)

If better players than you don't like/play AC because of the lack of the fusion bug, I say good riddance.

How about a situation where if ships are in contact with a ship that takes a fusion hit... all ships in the chain take 1000 damage? Why model the entire behavior instead of just the outcome?

That should reduce the chaoticity nicely!

Because you may actually survive it depending on the conditions (eg. if an uncharged fusion grases one party so only 1x or 2x damage is applied.) Applying flat damage that kills everyone involved for sure would make it worse.

If it's a freaking OPTIONAL AND OFF BY DEFAULT gameplay mode...SO WHAT?

Which is my point in this whole discussion.

Hell, you could even add options, to make it more or less difficult to achieve a chain-reaction kill. See, that shyt would be fun. I don't get why you're so fckn resistant.

People who don't like it can play elsewhere, just like I only play FF games if Fusion isn't on my team.

WarAdvocat wrote:I don't get why you're so fckn resistant.

Bugs that cause oscillating chaotic behavior are enemy #1 to all programmers. Once they are squashed no serious programmer will let them back in. It's an attitude that comes w/ the profession Coding a 100% emulation is impossible and an approximation would take some serious time -- not worth the effort to recreate something that's unwanted behavior in the 1st place IMVHO.

BTW, Checkor is running a poll in on the server ops board -- "would you turn fixing of the bug on or off?". So far 100% (7) voted "fixing on". Looks like even if it became optional nobody would enable it

yeah, I get your response except that we're past the bug part and into gameplay. And as for the \"unwanted behavior part\" I think I have seen people who want it from a player's perspective.

No need to respond Grendel I know you're not writing any mods for d3. Just glad SuperSheep wasn't around to squash trichording. We had to wait for Hexetic for that one.

I'd fix it. (I'm a developer)
I'd fix it. (I'm a gamer)

Fusion is shoddy enough online. I think tanks have more than enough advantages as it is anyway.

the better players will drift to the better playing servers.

and a better playing server is the server that can respond reliably. SSAC helps to accomplish this.

Generally speaking; If you insist on keeping the bug, perhaps you're using it as a crutch?

Just glad SuperSheep wasn't around to squash trichording

this is just wild speculation, and borderline dishonest.

The best way to describe the fusion bug in gameplay is to use the analogy of a seasoning, something that can change the flavor subtly and give a fresh new feel to an old dish. It is like the holy grail of mothing; exciting and challenging to use, requires precision timing and foresight greater than your average fusion lob. It adds a unique and unexpected spin to the gameplay not found in any other game.

The flaws are often some of the important parts of anything's character, which is why we would like to preserve the effect.

Testiculese wrote:I'd fix it. (I'm a developer)
I'd fix it. (I'm a gamer)

Fusion is shoddy enough online. I think tanks have more than enough advantages as it is anyway.

Did you forget that it works even better for Pyros and Phoenixes then it does for Tanks simply because both have faster reload times for Fusion?

And all it takes is one tap, not fully charged
so yes pyros and phoenix' have it better with this.

Ferno wrote:Generally speaking; If you insist on keeping the bug, perhaps you're using it as a crutch?

Yeah... that's it. Using a one in a thousand shot as a crutch. Gosh, it boosts my eff by .0001%. Actually, maybe you're right. As Krom said, it changes the flavor. So I guess it's a savor-adding crutch!

Ferno wrote:this is just wild speculation, and borderline dishonest.

Speculation? Huh? I do not think that word means what you think it means... and so now it's dishonest to express your feelings?

Yes, speculation... Sheep and I have talked and worked on tricording many times in the past.
I can tell you he never once gave me any indication he didnt like it/wanted to fix it.
For crying out loud, this is the answer to my original question? AC is not played because a bug was fixed?
This is nuts. Sorry I asked.

I agree with Gren, close the thread.

Behemoth wrote:so yes pyros and phoenix' have it better with this.

They do? Good... leave it in then. My phoenix needs all the help it can get to fight off those dang phoenix eating tanks or humvees as I call them now. ...and I like AC servers too.

Bee

humvees? I like that.

WarAdvocat wrote:Yeah... that's it. Using a one in a thousand shot as a crutch. Gosh, it boosts my eff by .0001%. Actually, maybe you're right. As Krom said, it changes the flavor. So I guess it's a savor-adding crutch!

In VV or Hally w/ 10+/8 players & no AC, I can reliably reproduce the effect at least once per 5min. Even more if I get team mates to crowd the other teams players. I do suffer from the effect at the same rate, even I watch out for it.

I would even go as far as to say that the high disco rate on DRH is caused by the fusion bug. It was even higher before MW was disabled (MW w/ a BP can causes a high damage packet rate.)

Well, gotta watch out for those high damage packet rates. After all, you wouldn't want to be killed by all those damage packets. Better ban every weapon that could potentially cause a high damage packet rate.

Okay, to get off the debate, here's a question I'm curious about:

For the players here who are good enough to periodcially pull off an intentional fusion-bug multi-kill, which one would give you the most advantage:

- The faster firing rate of the Pyro or Phoenix (essentially giving more chances to land the shot)?

- The larger Tank tri-fusion (essentially increasing the odds of the shot boundary including multiple ships)?

Krom wrote:Well, gotta watch out for those high damage packet rates. After all, you wouldn't want to be killed by all those damage packets. Better ban every weapon that could potentially cause a high damage packet rate.

c'mon dude, that's rediculous.

and WA.. no it's not dishonest to express your feelings. it's dishonest if they include half-truths.

You can be assured I wasn't half-truthful about my feelings. I feel that way wholeheartedly, thereby giving the lie to your (ahem) speculations

if you wanna fling crap.. alright.

Oh, I thought the charge mattered.

Well, I think it boils down to this..

WarA if you want fusionbug so badly...
Well then Host your own servers and run them the way you want. the rest of your argument is a mute point

-------------------------------------------

If I recall correctly this bug came about in one of the official version updates in an attempt to squash other cheats.... So with that said

What does Outrage (Jason Leighton, Duane Johnson, and Kevin Bentley) have to say about this... was ver 1.5 fixing this nasty bug.. Where they?? If so, then you people need a cup of STFU If not then cure the packets and keep the damage in SSAC, and I too will continue to exploit it.

Now if that is the case, while your at it bring back the afterburner bug and EMD bug and the spew a million concs bug etc etc Oh and least I forget, get rid of the Noobie bug. That's where Outrage changed the hit box from D2 style to the Hit sphere because of dialup losers that came from Forsaken and Battlezone just wouldn't stop wanking. enough of my sarcasm

Where is Such_a_ho's Ver 1.5 fix list , I wonder if mr meticulous has it there

DBB ate two rather lengthy posts, but I'll summarize...

I said it once so I'll say it again so perhaps you can see it...

I DO NOT VIEW TRICHORDING AS A BUG!

Fusion bug is not in any way like trichording, but it is very much like the Omega frame rate bug. The Omega frame rate bug is...

1. Unpredictable as hell.
2. Is FPS/PPS dependant.
3. Can kill a player practically instantly when it shouldn't.

Perhaps in the future you could refer to the Omega frame rate bug as the similar bug.

I thought Bunhip was kinda cute like you when you're mad.

Foil-

Fusion charge doesn't matter so it all boils down to volume.

Bubbalou-

I did not find the fusion bug in the 1.5 patch but I was talking to Kevin Bentley when I first started creating AC. He was at the time asking for suggestions but did not specifically mention this bug.


Outrage/Interplay is not going to continue to support D3 in the future. I and several other programmers including Grendel and VonRC have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours combined looking into continuing to patch and update D3 without source code. I don't see you Bunyip doing anything to continue updating D3.

Would you rather the game were kept as is, to have the bugs it has (rather long list) and simply die a slow death, or perhaps have some new life breathed into it with updates and bugfixes?

So, in other words, because you have the programming skills, you have the right to make unilateral gameplay changes?

With that kind of attitude, my response is simple:

Thanks for nothing!

Go fly a kite. Take a long walk... off a short pier. Get lost. Stop \"helping\"

I'll say it again: If you're not going to make it an optional fix, add it in as an additional gameplay mode without the chaotic issues. If you're not willing to do either...

You're just another dude on a power trip as far as I'm concerned.

Comparing the fusion bug to the omega bug isn't even remotely fair, the omega bug is almost random, you have no idea when it will hit and when it won't. The fusion bug is 100% reproducible and VERY predictable, they are almost completely different from each other even if they are both related to how the D3 engine handles damage. If you get rid of the packet bursting but preserve the effect of the fusion bug, nobody would be complaining here.

And Ferno, that reply at Grendel is because he managed to take complaining about BP microwave to an all new all time low. If BP MW is enough to disconnect you from a server, that server must have serious connection or processor issues. The idea that microwave is enough to flood out a server is just plain stupid.

WarAdvocat wrote:So, in other words, because you have the programming skills, you have the right to make unilateral gameplay changes?

With that kind of attitude, my response is simple:

Thanks for nothing!

Go fly a kite. Take a long walk... off a short pier. Get lost. Stop "helping"

I'll say it again: If you're not going to make it an optional fix, add it in as an additional gameplay mode without the chaotic issues. If you're not willing to do either...

You're just another dude on a power trip as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, OK, lets have everyone stop what they are doing and attend to WarA needs.
Dude, its not ALL about you!

Perhaps a list of things that AC adds and fixes is in order...

Bug fixes...
9. Name: Packet Forcing Bug
AC has a limited ability to kick players for higher than normal packet rates. This will improve greatly in the future.

16. Name: Friend Kill Bug NOT FIXED
This has been fixed for fusion only due to the fusion bug fix. This can and will be extended to all weapons.

Fixes...
62. Name: Observer Problem NOT FIXED
AC will kick players who enter/exit observer too quickly.

Features...
Support for friendly fire in all team modes.

An alternative smoothing algorithm to make D3 more playable.

Affinity command to allow D3 servers to operate on different CPU's on a multi-cpu system.

Priority command to allow run time setting of Priority of server.

OpenDoors command which allows all doors to open at level start.


Bugs related to fusion bug...
102. Name: Buffer Overrun Bug NOT FIXED
This is caused by excessive damage packets sent when firing Omega. This can cause a player to disconnect with a reliable buffer overrun.

Funny, this is exactly how the fusion bug used to behave.

AC will only continue to fix bugs and add features as time goes on and eventually the name will be changed to reflect more appropriately what we are doing.

WarAdvocat wrote:So, in other words, because you have the programming skills, you have the right to make unilateral gameplay changes?

With that kind of attitude, my response is simple:

Thanks for nothing!

Go fly a kite. Take a long walk... off a short pier. Get lost. Stop "helping"

I'll say it again: If you're not going to make it an optional fix, add it in as an additional gameplay mode without the chaotic issues. If you're not willing to do either...

You're just another dude on a power trip as far as I'm concerned.

Then we're done.

Krom wrote:Comparing the fusion bug to the omega bug isn't even remotely fair, the omega bug is almost random, you have no idea when it will hit and when it won't. The fusion bug is 100% reproducible and VERY predictable, they are almost completely different from each other even if they are both related to how the D3 engine handles damage. If you get rid of the packet bursting but preserve the effect of the fusion bug, nobody would be complaining here.

The Omega bug is reproducible. I have been able to reproduce it. You simply have to slide past the ship and fire Omega. I've had it done to me and I've done it to others repeatedly in Abend.

As Grendel has already mentioned, making the fusion bug work like the fusion bug without the packet bursting would be not only very unpredictable but would be subject to countless complaints. Either too much damage is applied, or not enough. Who's going to say what the correct emulation is? You? Bunyip? Us?

The point was that comparing the fusion bug to trichording is ridiculous.

SuperSheep wrote:Foil-Fusion charge doesn't matter so it all boils down to volume.

I wasn't talking about charge (see below). I'm asking about the relative effect of larger volume (tank tri-fus) vs. faster firing rate (pyro/phoenix), when it comes to being able to exploit the bug:

Foil wrote:..which one would give you the most advantage:
- The faster firing rate of the Pyro or Phoenix (essentially giving more chances to land the shot)?
- The larger Tank tri-fusion (essentially increasing the odds of the shot boundary including multiple ships)?