DescentBB

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

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

People don't like them because they can't cheat any more. Maybe it's the fact some new features are available too like Friendly Fire and Fusion Bug fix. It could be the fact that the Descent community just isn't what it once was. At one time we had hundreds of players and now we only have 20.

RC

you forgot two other things RC:

people actually have to aim at a target and the hits actually.. hit.

yea it's one of those foreign concepts that people usually don't get.

Ironically when I hit, it doesn't count as a hit

Does the cx VV game have AC on? if so that's a better reason to switch...

I like the AC very much! I've heard people complain about they got kicked \"accidentally\" only a few times and I have started to play on AC-servers only (almost) a few months ago...

This is the list which servers run the AC regulary:

- Central Servers
- Descentforum.NET X AC
- Grendel #XX
- Over The Hill Gang X
- Von #XX FT XXX (AC w/FF)

...so IMHO it is not really right that people avoid these servers. At least my DF.NET Ascent server is really played pretty well...

A lot of servers are running SSAC without advertising it. Some of the very most popular, in fact, run it. (Think \"abend\", \"subway dancer\" etc.)

For the record, the SSAC doesn't always improve gameplay. There are some little annoying glitches that crop up.. EG: \"Profight Inferno\" has an insta-kick spawnpoint, etc. Friendly fire is fun, when you have good teammates. Key concept: good teammates. One frag-chucking nooblet can ruin the fun. Likewise one jackass with a bad attitude.

My main objections to the SSAC are regarding gameplay issues. It's pretty lame that the fusion bug fix is not optional. Some people happen to enjoy that, while not enjoying cheating. Unfortunately since it \"causes lag\" when it happens...you get \"protected\" from both, or none. There's no option. It's imposed. Lame. All part and parcel, if you ask me. <shrug> We won't go into the philosophical aspect of my objections. After all it was just \"testing\", right? So what if you did an awful lot of \"testing\". On public servers. It was all for the greater good.

The fusion 'bug' fix bothers me, getting that bug to work for you isn't exactly easy, and avoiding having it used against you can also be trouble. It is especially hard to avoid if you are fighting against a pyro or a phoenix since they can fire fusion much more rapidly then the magnum which gives them a much higher chance of exploiting it. And even when I was on dialup I never was lagged out or disconnected from being hit, or hitting with the fusion bug. A few extra packets aren't going to kill the game and if the bug did cause that kind of problem don't you think people would have noticed it a lot sooner? All in all I would say that the fusion bug evens itself out to become quite fair in gameplay, 'fixing' it was a mistake.

WarAdvocat wrote:For the record, the SSAC doesn't always improve gameplay. There are some little annoying glitches that crop up.. EG: "Profight Inferno" has an insta-kick spawnpoint, etc. Friendly fire is fun, when you have good teammates. Key concept: good teammates. One frag-chucking nooblet can ruin the fun. Likewise one jackass with a bad attitude.

That bug is probably due to a bad shell in the level. I will look into it and most likely it can be fixed.

I like friendly fire and think its a "gameplay feature" that should be in the game. But, to each his/her own.

WarAdvocat wrote:My main objections to the SSAC are regarding gameplay issues. It's pretty lame that the fusion bug fix is not optional. Some people happen to enjoy that, while not enjoying cheating. Unfortunately since it "causes lag" when it happens...you get "protected" from both, or none. There's no option. It's imposed. Lame. All part and parcel, if you ask me. <shrug> We won't go into the philosophical aspect of my objections. After all it was just "testing", right? So what if you did an awful lot of "testing". On public servers. It was all for the greater good.

K, I'll break it down for the last time...

Draw 2 circles on a sheet of paper about 1" diameter each, labeled player 1 and 2. Each slightly within the area of the other. Now draw another circle 2" in diameter, labeled fusion, just about to hit the two 1" circles.

Now, to simulate each frame of gameplay, advance the 2" diameter circle 0.1". As it hits one of the 1" circles, right that number down on paper. When it hits both circles, write both numbers down each frame.

Do that until the fusion is not touching anymore. Here's an example...

Frame 1
Hit 1

Frame 2
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 3
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 4
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 5
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 6
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 7
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 8
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 9
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 10
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 11
Hit 2

Wow...That's alot of hits. But wait, this is only 2 ships. Imagine 3, 4 or 5 ships all within that radius. That would be a whole lotta hits.

When we did our "whole lotta testing" we did in fact test the fusion bug with 2, 3, 4 players. The results were packet bursts in the tens and nearly a hundred. These all happened within less than 1 second. And, to make matters worse, these are reliable packets which means each packet has to be acknowledged. This is the technical term for another packet gets sent. So, that puts us at nearly 200 packets. Now, imagine two fusion blobs, or three? Those numbers will reach nearly a thousand packets.

This can cause a variety of things...

1. A glitch in gameplay (that you love so much). This is because the server is too busy to handle anything but fusion damage packets.

2. Disconnects. Players with less than stable connects will occasionally lose their connection.

3. Players in the kill zone experiencing a much larger glitch accompanied by a large clang, amplified by the large number of hits.

4. Players thrown from the impact zone if not killed.

You call it gameplay, I call that a bug.

SuperSheep wrote: K, I'll break it down for the last time...

Draw 2 circles on a sheet of paper about 1" diameter each, labeled player 1 and 2. Each slightly within the area of the other. Now draw another circle 2" in diameter, labeled fusion, just about to hit the two 1" circles.

Now, to simulate each frame of gameplay, advance the 2" diameter circle 0.1". As it hits one of the 1" circles, right that number down on paper. When it hits both circles, write both numbers down each frame.

Do that until the fusion is not touching anymore. Here's an example...

Frame 1
Hit 1

Frame 2
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 3
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 4
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 5
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 6
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 7
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 8
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 9
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 10
Hit 2, Hit 1

Frame 11
Hit 2

Wow...That's alot of hits. But wait, this is only 2 ships. Imagine 3, 4 or 5 ships all within that radius. That would be a whole lotta hits.

When we did our "whole lotta testing" we did in fact test the fusion bug with 2, 3, 4 players. The results were packet bursts in the tens and nearly a hundred. These all happened within less than 1 second. And, to make matters worse, these are reliable packets which means each packet has to be acknowledged. This is the technical term for another packet gets sent. So, that puts us at nearly 200 packets. Now, imagine two fusion blobs, or three? Those numbers will reach nearly a thousand packets.

Sheep,

I think we need to create an animation of this. People still don't get it.

I get it.

I even think having a 'fix' for it is worthwhile.

if.

it.

were.

optional.

(or if the effect were preserved without the packet bursting)

Pretty simple concept.

Maybe I should do a fckn animation.

The fusion bug owns you

That's like saying a Omega cannon fix should be optional. The fusion bug is a serious bug that would be fixed in a patch as soon developers are aware of it (if there where any support..) Since the effect can't be kept w/o the paket bursting it shouldn't be optional, it should be on all the time.

I sure hope esa doesn't start running SSAC then. Server always plays real nice.

Did anyone care to count how big the packets were? Rather then just counting the numbers, size matters a LOT. I can't imagine a damage packet being much larger then about 100 bytes on the pipe.

My ISP has been flooded on and off lately by windows messenger 'net send' spam, my connection can pull about 160 of these ~900 byte packets per second. Smaller packets, like say less then 80 bytes, my connection can handle over 1000 of them per second easily. So how big are these fusion damage packets that supposedly lagout servers? Even though once I killed 4 players in one shot with the fusion bug I never remember a lag glitch from it.

A while ago I saw a flood of 62 byte packets; over 11,000 of them in about 9 seconds, around 1300 packets per second. And that is on the slow side of my DSL, the 180k/sec max upload of my DSL could handle just shy of 3,000 of these packets per second. So just how big are these fusion packets that could cause a crash if you fusionbug enough players at once? Instead of counting packets, count the bytes involved, including the acknowledgement packets before you say it is too much for the connection to handle.

The problem is w/ the server, besides clogging the connect it's mainly processing the packets.

I don't think anyone understands the insistence that the fusion bugfix be forced if you want anti-cheat protection. Why not an option to disable the fix?

\"Because we said so\" is the answer.

IMO... that's lame.

Simple on-off switch. Can't be that difficult. Make it \"on\" by default for the noobies.

I don't see the problem with that. The people that will turn the bugfix \"off\" don't care about the consequences. Why not give them anti-cheat protection too?

All I know is that there is a \"Profight Inferno\" server that kicks randomly for cheating. It is quite annoying to play. So I think the anti-cheat thing is broken.

I can remember playing lan games in smaller levels (indika comes to mind) with 16 ppl throwing fusion blobs all over the place.

Game ran fine, maybe a bit slow at times, but nothing over the edge.

Even if no one plays D3 over a LAN anymore, it's still very much a LAN game. I can see the fusion bug as being a huge problem with server based games over limited bandwidth connections. In which case, an option to \"fix it\" makes a lot of sense.

But having the option to leave the game as is in an enviroment that can handle it is more then reasonable.

WarAdvocat wrote:I don't think anyone understands the insistence that the fusion bugfix be forced if you want anti-cheat protection. Why not an option to disable the fix?

What I don't understand is your insistence for a bug fix being optional ? Why should it stay in ?

What idiot would be flying in a 16 player indika on dialup?

The processing is a comical, D3 can run on even a pentium 2 system and hold playable framerates, the dedicated server requires even less computing power. You could run 2 servers on one computer with 30 players each @ 1000 fps fusionbugging each other all the time and still not be hurting for processing power on anything built in the last 5 years.

Also, fusionbug on a LAN is highly unlikely because most people set accurate colisions on LAN, which makes it virtually impossible for the fusionbug to happen.

Xamindar wrote:All I know is that there is a "Profight Inferno" server that kicks randomly for cheating. It is quite annoying to play. So I think the anti-cheat thing is broken.

Dude, did you read the thread, or just skim? That issue has already been addressed. And, no, AC is not "broken". The insta-kick spawnpoint in Profight Inferno is specific to that level, not a problem with AC.

Regarding the Fusion-bug fix, I tend to agree that there is some merit to the argument that it should be optional. But on the other hand, I'm not sure there would be many people who want to run AC without the fusion bug fix. After all, if you have the skill (I know *I* don't) to intentionally exploit the fusion-bug, why would you be worried about the few cheaters still around?

I'm with Krom and WarAdvocat... The fusion bug should be left alone. An AC should prevent cheating... and the fusion bug isn't cheating. End of story.

But, I appreciate the FF mod alot

Foil wrote:Dude, did you read the thread, or just skim? That issue has already been addressed. And, no, AC is not "broken". The insta-kick spawnpoint in Profight Inferno is specific to that level, not a problem with AC.

Oops I skimmed.

Grendel wrote:What I don't understand is your insistence for a bug fix being optional ? Why should it stay in ?

It's poor etiquette to answer a question with a question, but in the interests of finding a solution, I'll go ahead and answer:

First: Because it adds a gameplay element that I'm willing to risk packet bursts to enjoy, as are many others. Second: This isn't an official patch, just a third party application that modifies gameplay, and it would be an utterly trivial change to just make the fix optional.

I'd be interested in YOUR answering my question now. I'll repeat the substantiative portion:

Why the insistence that the fusion bugfix be forced if you want anti-cheat protection? Why not an option to disable the fix?

WarAdvocat wrote:I don't think anyone understands the insistence that the fusion bugfix be forced if you want anti-cheat protection. Why not an option to disable the fix?

"Because we said so" is the answer.

IMO... that's lame.

Simple on-off switch. Can't be that difficult. Make it "on" by default for the noobies.

I don't see the problem with that. The people that will turn the bugfix "off" don't care about the consequences. Why not give them anti-cheat protection too?

What I don't understand is why you are having a problem with this when this is only server side. Even if there was an option, it would never apply to you since you don't have a server up.

WHY would anyone WANT to keep an error like this around?

OPTIONAL? really WA..Then why not code bugs INTO the game. like a massive packet drop or some such.

Duper wrote:WHY would anyone WANT to keep an error like this around?

Think about it, couldn't be any easier and anyone who thinks it is part of the game, uses it as a crutch

I find the Anti Cheat servers seem to level the playing field. I also like the fact that when someone is trying to cheat it posts the cheat in the game so I can learn what does what. Low packets, fast fire, etc. Explains alot of things on my end.

Sometime you can get kicked from a mega blast acclerating your ship too fast, but this is rare.

And I love the FF option, now you need some skill firing a frag or lobbing tri-fusion in your base.

Even the best can wipe out their own force with one wrong blast.

Do people REALLY sheat that much? I've been living in ignorance. Maybe that's why those Germans are so good

Seriously, do people still bother cheating with this old game?

Muffalicious wrote:What I don't understand is why you are having a problem with this when this is only server side. Even if there was an option, it would never apply to you since you don't have a server up.

It doesn't apply to me? Interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? Did I quit playing when I wasn't paying attention? Somehow I'll be able to use the fusion bug on SSAC servers because I don't have a server up? Am I missing some vital link in the chain of logic here?

Bubba: Heh. I'll just consider the source. You cry about "packet loss" on a perfectly stable LAN... and believe yourself.

Duper: Do you even know what you're talking about? There are positive and negative aspects to this unplanned feature. If you want to take away the packet bursting, I'm all for that. Leave the chain-reaction fusion result! I'm sure genius coders that can add friendly fire can add this as well. Or for Christ's Sake, just leave the bugfix optional if they can't be bothered to code this in as a supported anti-cheat gameplay mode.

WarAdvocat wrote:...There are positive and negative aspects to this unplanned feature. Remember, Trichording was a "bug" once too.

[Edit:]'Doh! You must have edited your post while I was responding. Oh, well, it's still true.[/Edit]

Quite true! And if I recall correctly, there was some discussion of leaving it out of D2, but the fans wouldn't have it.

In this case, though, I'm just not sure there's that much demand for having AC without the fusion-bug fix. Not many active server ops or players are asking for it that way.

However, in the unlikely event the demand for making it optional grows beyond the couple of people here: SuperSheep, how much work would it be to make the fusion-bug fix optional (on by default, of course)?

yeah sorry for the edit I didn't want to get into it... it's an old conversation. We've been down this road before... And S00perSheep isn't gonna make any changes.

I'm just grumbling... Of the 10 people who still play that have the skill to use this bug reliably, I ain't one of 'em...But I aspire to be.

WarAdvocat wrote:I'd be interested in YOUR answering my question now. I'll repeat the substantiative portion:

Why the insistence that the fusion bugfix be forced if you want anti-cheat protection? Why not an option to disable the fix?

The fusion bug is what the name implies, a bug. Ei. it causes unwanted/undocumented behavior & side effects in the server (packet bursts, disconnects) and the gameplay (applying damage to players multiple times where only one damage value should count). In addition the effect varies from server to server since it's server FPS/PPS dependant.

Fixing it is mandatory IMHO. Makes the server more stable, makes a fusion blast more predictable for everybody.

Edit: I do see the bug as something inbetween a cheat and an exploit. To me it makes sense to have it fixed w/ an anti cheat tool. Also, I'm not sure server ops would turn it off (if it were optional), since having it on increases server stability -- I know I wouldn't.

its a part of descent get over it

I look at it this way:

if it lessens the load on a server, if it lessens the load on the client... it stays.

Because if the server doesn't have to donate all it's resources to processing one type of packet, it can process others. like laser hits, vauss hits, player positions, etc.

Behemoth wrote:its a part of descent get over it

So was the D1 fusion bug but that got smashed in D1x

Krom wrote:What idiot would be flying in a 16 player indika on dialup?

The processing is a comical, D3 can run on even a pentium 2 system and hold playable framerates, the dedicated server requires even less computing power. You could run 2 servers on one computer with 30 players each @ 1000 fps fusionbugging each other all the time and still not be hurting for processing power on anything built in the last 5 years.

Also, fusionbug on a LAN is highly unlikely because most people set accurate colisions on LAN, which makes it virtually impossible for the fusionbug to happen.

Krom, this is not correct. The fusion bug happens on LAN and over the internet with or without accurates on.

The fusion bug occurs because the inadequate amount of information stored in the object record. There is only one field to determine what the last object hit was. This field is used to prevent things like the fusion bug however, the size of the fusion and the fact that it is a persistent weapon create a situation where this field will toggle repeatedly between each player including the player who fired the weapon.

Accurate collision simply uses a sphere instead of a bounding box. The size is still large enough to cause the bug.

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.

LAN fusion bug owns you

It's a bug, games are patched because of bugs. Fix the bug.