Fixing The Fusion Bug?

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:07 pm

I get the reliable buffer overrun once in a while in a full VV. Depending on the game, up to ~10% of my deaths are caused by the fusion bug and I do exploit it in crammed areas. Everybodies milage varies, I'm still for fixing it.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:17 pm

I'm with the majority on this as well...now that I understand it.

I'm also wondering how long it will be b4 someone says something about my BP plasma attacks

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:28 pm

Krom: based on how the for's have progressed, it sounds like it's come down to this over-used, tired excuse: "Oh dear! Please think of the slow connection players!" Yes, all five of them. That's why nearly all servers use less than 10pps, too -- can't have guys using 12pps on their Cable connections having a major advantage, now can they?!

Muffalicious · Post by **Muffalicious** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:31 pm

You know I love the way you guys argue for the sake of arguing. I also love the way you KIDS dig at any chance you get. I'm very gratefull that Super Sheep is even trying to do something to improve the game play.

Over the years he has done a lot for this community.
From the looks of this post I see how hard it is to get any positive feedback when all you guys do is ★■◆●. I hope you guys(War Advocat, Krom) enjoyed your personal digs and twist of words so we can get back to the facts.

War you know I still <3 Ya

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:49 pm

The issue here is that Sheep said no way no how is the fix not going to be put in, and no way no how will it be somehow optional. When I posted to tell people to stop wasting their words here, it became a big to-do.

So tell me, is this poll gonna change crap? NO. So why quibble over the exact wording?

Muffalicious wrote:War you know I still <3 Ya

I am a <3'able sort of fellow.

Sarge · Post by **Sarge** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:55 pm

Ask yourself: Do you gain an advantage using this 'bug'?

That should eliminate any confusion.... ( although I'm still confused on what it is and how to 'use' it, prolly a good thing

)

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:31 pm

Another vote for keeping the "fusion bug." I don't get to use it very often, but when I do, it adds a bit of excitement to the game. It also improves my skills, because when someone like Krom, Shadowfox, birdseye, Sergeant Thorne, whoever is playing, I take extra caution to make sure I'm not stuck on any other ships.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:32 pm

Grendel, 10% of your death's from fusion bug shots? Do you spend half your time in veins flying inside other people's hit spheres? Even in a 14 player indika that number sounds highly unlikely to me unless you were trying your very best to do it on purpose.

Muffalicious: Trying to improve the gameplay? Do you think this anti-cheat software is going to fix the broken level selection and lack of players? What needed improvement in gameplay in the time from 1999 to present that this anti-cheat software really addresses? Cheating has always been almost non-existent, I can count on one hand of a shop teacher the number of times I've been in a game that was actually disrupted by cheating in the last 6 years. The gameplay has been ruined first and foremost by the level and server decisions of the players. Descent 3 multiplayer evolved into a 10 second missile fest with no long lasting gameplay value. If you want to address the facts; all of Descent 3's current active players are either unwilling or unable to handle the game as the developers intended it to be played.

Taking the fusion bug out is definitely not improving the gameplay. Not that I play much anymore because multiplayer started to feel like single player only the robots complained when you killed them. I took the fusion bug into account quite often when I was playing in CTF or TA, I was careful to avoid bumping into people while fighting or traversing any level. The bug added additional depth and tactics that I enjoyed keeping track of; that's gameplay. Just the fact that most people still don't know about the bug speaks for how rare it is anyway. The most common time I've been killed by the fusion bug was from spawning in halcyon stuck on some BPnewb that parked on the spawn point inside the base. One more death in over 50,000 total, hardly worth mentioning.

And why is it every time someone gets some negative feedback on a product or idea they are trying to push, all these people come up and say how ungrateful everyone is? Why do so many people automatically expect or demand positive feedback even if the product really does suck? Just because someone is trying something to help, does not mean it is always automatically a good thing. Haven't any of you ever heard the expression: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."?

If you want to fix a Fusion Bug, fix the one in everyone's favorite peer to peer subway dancer server. You know, the bug where in any peer to peer server the clients can charge Fusion forever and not take any damage from it.

Good point Sarge, and I don't gain an advantage from it, since everyone and anyone can do it.

Neo · Post by **Neo** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:41 pm

hmm...

Why does everyone say "the Fusion bug?" There are a lot of bugs with Fusion in D3.

Like the P2P bug that Krom mentioned, and the bug that lets the Black Pyro have infinite energy for its Fusion Cannon. Not to mention the insta-charge bug. ^_^

I always thought the Fusion bump move was just blasting someone at point-blank range (pure skill =P) like Krom said. Thanks for confusing me, Grendel! ^_~

I don't mind the Fusion bug that this thread is obviously about. It is used a lot, actually. ^_~ It's not very rare. It's useful in places like Stadium near the E-center or that room where everyone seems to spawn. =P I notice it a lot in Indika, pretty much anywhere in there. ^_~ As a victim on the receiving end, I don't really mind getting Fusion-bugged. After I die, I think, "why did I die? Oh, Fusion bug," then I respawn, and move on. ^_~ So, either way, it's just yet another death, a death that doesn't count anyway, since the stats server is down and all account information on PXO has been deleted anyway. =P I think I just Fusion-bumped someone a few minutes ago on Sheep's server...if he was running the updated copy of AC, then it couldn't be my shields causing the "bug."

Anyway, I'm not sure how I would feel about not having that Fusion bug in game. It would definitely be an extra challenge. But I am inclined to say that anyone who doesn't like the Fusion bug is just another f00b. ^_~ (No offense, Sheepy. ^_~) And of course, most of you know the corollary to that theory... ^_~

Oh, I almost forgot! ^_^ If you want to fix Fusion, how about making it take 240 shields like D1 instead of 128? =P ^_~

Gregster2k · Post by **Gregster2k** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:36 am

I return to DescentBB to read it for the first time in half a year to find this. The fact that you all are arguing over this in the first place is the most retarded thing I've ever seen and gives me renewed interest in not reading these forums for another extended period of time.

That said, I'll take my stand not for or with the bug, but against THIS: That guy said we had no choice and that SuperSheep was doing it regardless. Who the hell does he think he is? All the reputation in the world does not give him carte blanche in screwing with the game.

Being a Descent player myself I would of heard of his contributions by now if they were so darn great. I can't name even one off the top of my head. Fixing the Fusion Bug will not change server playercounts, it will only give these fools a power trip in knowing they have altered the online gaming experience of the few remaining Descent 3 players.

Have fun playing God with the small D3 community that is left --- but I will not submit.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:40 am

About arguing: Welcome back, it's what the DBB is about - don't you know?

About SuperSheep, I remember him mainly for writing the only really powerful OOF editor for D3.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:03 pm

heh

Cya Greg. Nice of you to look at one thing you don't like, but totally ignore a shitload of things that the anti-cheat coding blocks. You go right ahead on your merry ignorant way while the rest of us are still playing happily.

That being said, it was ALOT of fun testing the fusion bug fix.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:53 pm

Gregster2k wrote:I return to DescentBB to read it for the first time in half a year to find this. The fact that you all are arguing over this in the first place is the most retarded thing I've ever seen and gives me renewed interest in not reading these forums for another extended period of time.
That said, I'll take my stand not for or with the bug, but against THIS: That guy said we had no choice and that SuperSheep was doing it regardless. Who the hell does he think he is? All the reputation in the world does not give him carte blanche in screwing with the game.
Being a Descent player myself I would of heard of his contributions by now if they were so darn great. I can't name even one off the top of my head. Fixing the Fusion Bug will not change server playercounts, it will only give these fools a power trip in knowing they have altered the online gaming experience of the few remaining Descent 3 players.
Have fun playing God with the small D3 community that is left --- but I will not submit.

Do I detect rudeness

Your use of the word 'fool' is questionable considering you don't know this individual(as you inadvertantly admit). And since there is this 'intelligence gap', so to speak, I'll let you know that his contributions speak for themselves for those of us involved in daily gameplay

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:55 pm

MD-2389 wrote: That being said, it was ALOT of fun testing the fusion bug fix.

well dang...I guess I missed out on that one

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:44 pm

I dunno about you but i like playing on a server that doesn't suffer from packet diarrhea.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:59 pm

Ferno wrote:I dunno about you but i like playing on a server that doesn't suffer from packet diarrhea.

BWAHHAHAH!!

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:52 pm

will_kill wrote:
MD-2389 wrote: That being said, it was ALOT of fun testing the fusion bug fix.

well dang...I guess I missed out on that one

Oh we still test plenty of fixes.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:06 pm

WarAdvocat wrote:The issue here is that Sheep said ... no way no how will it be somehow optional. When I posted to tell people to stop wasting their words here, it became a big to-do.

So tell me, is this poll gonna change crap? NO. So why quibble over the exact wording?

Greg wrote:it will only give these fools a power trip in knowing they have altered the online gaming experience of the few remaining Descent 3 players.

Funny. I had the same thought when I saw WarAdvocat's message. So SS is a pocket dictator? Nearly every server will have SSAC on it eventually, making whatever changes he dictates almost impossible to avoid, and since he has no intention of making any gameplay changes optional to server ops, players will be forced to accept them. That is completely repugnant to those that want to have the choice (few as they may be), but it's nice that we both agree that that is some serious power he now wields. Trends are hard to stop once started.

"Hmm...let's see here...I'd like the Anti-Cheat Special, but without the bull★■◆● powertrip toppings, please."

Next thing you know, custom skins will be somehow be made ba-- oops, I've gone and given them an idea.

---
Still waiting to see a download link for this SSAC.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:11 pm

Oh grow the ★■◆● up. This isn't some damn powertrip here. I talk to Sheep almost every night over TS. Trust me, if this WERE a powertrip I WOULD KNOW.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:14 pm

If these non-cheat-fix changes were optional, none of this would be an issue.

It is not a very difficult task for experienced coders to toggle code on/off with a mere checkbox.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:16 pm

Nor is it a very diffucult task of finding another server if you don't like it.

Bunch of damn crybabies.

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:47 pm

Skyalmian wrote:If these non-cheat-fix changes were optional, none of this would be an issue. It is not a very difficult task for experienced coders to toggle code on/off with a mere checkbox.

Several things are optional in the AntiCheat software like smoothing and minPPS. The Fusion bug does 'suffer from packet diarrhea' and I'm glad to see it gone.

Another option that was just introduced is Friendly Fire for all team type games. Friendly Fire makes it possible for you to damage and kill your own team mates. With Friendly Fire on you have to be much more careful about who you shoot at making the game much more challenging. You can't just toss an Impact Mortar in to a crowded area any more or shoot Fusion down skinny halls because you might just hit your friends.

The Friendly Fire option can be turned on for any team type game by the server operator. At this time the only penalty for killing your team mates is their death (and maybe yours later) but depending on how hard you want to make the game maybe someday it could even be set to subtract kills from you and give them to your team mate, subtract points from your team, or automatically kick TK'rs and impose a short ban on them (sort of like a penalty bench in hockey).

If you thought you were good at team games before try it with Friendly Fire turned on and try not to kill your friends.

RC

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:46 pm

Why don't all of you move to NZ where the rest of the sheep are?

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:16 pm

Richard Cranium wrote:Another option that was just introduced is Friendly Fire for all team type games. Friendly Fire makes it possible for you to damage and kill your own team mates. With Friendly Fire on you have to be much more careful about who you shoot at making the game much more challenging...

The Friendly Fire option can be turned on for any team type game by the server operator...

I know what Friendly Fire is. I've undoubtedly had more practice with Friendly Fire in Descent 3 than anyone else on this board, with well over 500 friendly fire games behind me.

That's cool / nice. And it's optional, just the way such [third party] changes to gameplay should be.

Muffalicious · Post by **Muffalicious** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:29 pm

Such nice A$$HOLES in here!

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:45 pm

Statistics told me Australia had more sheep, from memory.

I think we still have it in sheep per capita, though.

And sadly, most countries have a higher proportion of 'sheep' than we do. Considering our record is far from perfect there.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:21 am

fix bug (yes/no)?

is that what you people are asking for?

A programmer would be doing everyone and himself a disservice by not fixing bugs.

Seems some people here care more about exploiting a bug than making the game fun again.

On another note: Putting SS into the same camp as a dictator is like putting ghandi into the same camp as anarchists. way to waste your brain matter.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:12 am

Ferno wrote:fix bug (yes/no)?

is that what you people are asking for?

A programmer would be doing everyone and himself a disservice by not fixing bugs.

Seems some people here care more about exploiting a bug than making the game fun again.

On another note: Putting SS into the same camp as a dictator is like putting ghandi into the same camp as anarchists. way to waste your brain matter.

Trichording is a bug, I demand if you remove the Fusion bug that you also remove the Trichording bug.

Saying all bugs are bad and must be fixed is stupid, haven't you ever accidentally done something that saved you time or you actually liked?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:39 am

have you ever done any programming Krom?

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:50 am

Muffalicious wrote:Such nice A$$HOLES in here!

Not to put too fine a point on it: Who is more of an a-hole...the person asking that a change to gameplay be made "optional" or the person saying "Absolutely NOT!"? Remember, Only one of these people definately has a choice in the matter, the other may not, or may have a choice that is untenable (such as playing on a server flooded by cheaters).

A simple checkbox, on/off. I think it's a pretty reasonable request, and shouldn't be difficult to implement... What was the reason for the absolute refusal to include this again? Once you get past the gobbltygook about packet bursting, which everyone has said they can accept, and really isn't that much of a factor on a modern connection ANYWAY, it pretty much boils down to "I don't want to", right? Or am I missing something utterly game-breaking?

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:17 am

The fact remains that Sheep's ideas are kept in check by the server operators willingness to run his software. It's the server op's ultimate decision. I'm on the mailing list for the AC software and I can assure you all that communication lines are wide open. I will run this software on my servers. If you don't like it, find another game or serve your own games. You guys are acting like this is an official f**king patch or something. Quit yer bitchin'!

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:17 am

Krom wrote:Trichording is a bug,

Since when ? Last time I checked the programmers just did their math, were sort of surprised and left it in as a feature.

Edit: So you started playing again ?
phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=123752&highlight=#123752

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:45 am

Krom wrote:Trichording is a bug, I demand if you remove the Fusion bug that you also remove the Trichording bug.

If thats what you really want... Ok then. We can look at removing the ability to Trichord too.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:33 am

Richard Cranium wrote:...We can look at removing the ability to Trichord...

How about making that a switchable option too? Let's EXPAND gameplay modes, not restrict them

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:12 am

There are 3 different fusion bugs.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:22 am

Punstig8 wrote:You guys are acting like this is an official f**king patch or something. Quit yer bitchin'!

It is as far-reaching as an official patch. If that's what servers host with, then that's what we play. The reason this is such an issue is that it's a questionable/divisive change tacked onto a very well received one. A lot like a bill in congress, if they could tack things on after the passing of the bill. I could go on and on with the analogies: giving a kid a treat, and, after they've got it in their mouth, tell them they can only have it if they rake the yard, ...

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:02 pm

SuperSheep wrote:As most of you know, the most recent release of Anticheat has fixed the "fusion bug" but there is a lot of confusion as to exactly what this bug is and debate as to whether it is a feature, a bug, or something else altogether. I'd like to explain what the fusion bug is and what it is not.

The fusion bug is what happens when two or more players that are touching are hit with fusion. The result is that in almost every case, all players that are touching die. The state of charge of the fusion does not matter. The deaths are accompanied by a massive explosion and all ships involved being thrown violently apart much like being hit by a mega missile.

The fusion bug is not an unintended feature. Whenever the fusion bug occurs, it is accompanied by a huge burst of network traffic in the form of damage packets. These damage packets are "reliable" because they require acknowledgements from the clients. So there is a huge burst of ACK's(acknowledgements) immediately following the burst of damage packets. If the fusion bug were an unintended feature (i.e., trichording), it would be one very bad way of doing it due to this burst of network activity.

The fusion bug may indeed be an art to take advantage of and certainly in games where players have "room", that would be the case. But in the cases where most seek to use the bug, are in games that don't have "room" and where many deaths can be racked up as one fusion blast after another is shot into packed rooms.

The fusion bug is not consistent. Although in most cases it kills, if the FPS of the server is not above a certain level, then the players may only lose 80-90 shields and survive, albeit with a huge bang that sends them hurdling across the room, probably making the players wonder what happened. In this case, the fusion bug is perceived as server weirdness.

The fusion bug does cause packet bursts which can lead to "Reliable Buffer Overruns", especially for those on lower speed connects. It can in some cases lead to deterioration of gameplay as the server has now been loaded down to send the extra traffic.

Under these circumstances, I can not justify not fixing the fusion bug. If it were not for the huge burst of network activity, it could be conceived as a weak feature, but even in that case, one should rewrite(as they did with trichording) to make it consistent, i.e., not FPS dependant, same results each time, etc.,.

So, hopefully that dispells the confusion surrounding the fusion bug, what it is, and what it does, and sheds some light on to why it was fixed.

Rob "SuperSheep" Piontek

I've been undecided, leaning toward being against the fix, but after reading that I'm all for it.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:50 pm

To go along with what grendel is saying (he basically beat me to it) is Trichording in D1 was a bug, but when the programmers got feedback about it they decided to put trichording into D3 as a feature.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:01 pm

And to disspell any myths that there are no options, everything but the fusion bug IS optional. Where some of you crybabies got the idea that not a single fix was optional, I have no ★■◆●ing clue.

Here's a wild idea. Instead of sitting in your armchair bitching and moaning, why don't you actually play the game and see for yourself whats actually changed.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:25 pm

so then it's setteled

....now everyone!..man your ships! charge up your fusion and let's check it out!

Fixing The Fusion Bug?

Should a bugfix be implemented for the Fusion Bug?