Whoa....time out folks - My proposal

Acheron · Post by **Acheron** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:55 am

god damn the current "private beta testing team" must suck ass. well i know i stated they are n00bs from before.. and they must be. hillus! they should be called private coop testers

qwerty2 · Post by **qwerty2** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:43 am

I'm on the private testing team I think, I did some stuff early on

Krusader · Post by **Krusader** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:47 am

Acheron you are always welcome to join the beta testing!

Sincerely,
Krusader

GHOST® · Post by **GHOST®** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:42 am

[color=DFC99B]

Acheron wrote:god damn the current "private beta testing team" must suck ass. well i know i stated they are n00bs from before.. and they must be. hillus! they should be called private coop testers

Acheron ?? You miss this mornings medication mb ?? While some of us do play cOOps, that doesnt mean thats ALL we play. Lumping us all as strictly cOOpers is as incorrect as you calling us nOObs because none of us belong to your little fan club BME. You have a perception and opinions, hell we all do, but most of us dont go around trying to force our opinions on others, we give them, then stand back.

Iron has been very tolerant of you and has gone out of his way to provide code snippets and proof of how things really stand, (none of which I think is necessary), and to sort thru the BS you usually post to get at that small kernal of a possible bug report.

Anyways, I think you really should back off questioning/bad mouthing the programmers/testers and try to provide some useful, non inflammatoy feedback for a change. Calling us nOObs and putting us down just makes me want to go "To hell with Archerons bug reports, it aint worth the hassle of reading thru the BS and put downs to get to the *possible* bug report.

Anyways, take a `lude dude !! Youll get better results with honey than with your normal bullshit.[/color]

Acheron · Post by **Acheron** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:30 pm

dont worry ghost. i think im pretty much done for the time being. That is why i didnt post much in igmos topic..

See you all at 1.6,,, well unless halo2 is out!

Baak · Post by **Baak** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:55 pm

Thanks, Iron!

(re: random number stuff)

Thought it was most likely the same, but nice to know that it hasn't changed (I didn't think it would).

I think I may have caught a glance of that code a couple of years ago when inquiring with the previous team about "team ordering" in films. I've seen some better random-number generators out there, but I wouldn't *dare* touch it!

Was an interesting little experiment.

CIK · Post by **CIK** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:20 pm

Acheron wrote:dont worry ghost. i think im pretty much done for the time being. That is why i didnt post much in igmos topic..

Good then I don't need to add the code if (player = Archeon) do something bad, because there "Will" be no 1.6.

Have a nice day

Post by **Doobie** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:09 pm

Iron Wrote:

When you throw a dice there's no law saying that just because you rolled a 6 last time you're less likely to roll another straight away. Its the same story here.

You're right of course, except that because myth uses the same seed every time, the "Random" number generator should be 100% predictable, which makes these variations all the more perculiar to me...

Maybe it would be worthwhile attempting to use a more random seed? Or would playing with that code be too dangerous (I realize that all players in a host would need the same seed, but that could be sent via a packet from the host, probly too big a change to be considering at this point i guess...)

Baak · Post by **Baak** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:03 pm

... That's what I meant by "wouldn't dare touch it" :;):

I tremble at the thought of messing with something so much a part of the core of the game.

There is a seed that gets stored in each film, thus leading to the amazing ability to repeat every little projectile in a film (all the thrall bits, etc.) - so you have to have a seed. And using a seed like this relies on the fact that they are using a "pseudo-random" number generator (to make a list of pseudo-random numbers based on the seed), so using a true random number generator wouldn't really work after all. You could play using it, but films wouldn't work.

I've seen better pseudo-random number generators, but again I don't think I would dare touch it.

The part where a bounce is often followed by a quick sequence of bounces actually makes things like an initial bounce that much more interesting - I doubt if this was planned, but one never knows! I just wonder if it isn't because it is within the same second (time granularity) that it tends to repeat like that.

I am just fascinated when a game gets to the point where you can "feel" sometimes when the next Fireball is going to dud! Of course, some would argue that when you know things like that, you're probably playing too much! :laugh:

Post by **Doobie** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:48 pm

Re: films and the random seed, like sending the seed to other players in a multiplayer game, the seed used in that game could be stored in the film

Of course, as previously mentioned, it's probably too late to be thinking about this now, and probably too dangerous a thing to be playing with anyway.

Website · Post by **iron** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:10 pm

the seed each game is different doob, so no two games will play alike. Two lines from the code that show this...

data->parameters.random_seed= machine_tick_count();
set_random_seed(data->parameters.random_seed);

Post by **Doobie** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:20 pm

my mistake

igmo · Post by **igmo** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:27 pm

Baak wrote:Ok - I've posted the results of my two "double dud" tests - one for 1.4.3 and one for 1.5 Beta 1 - you can find them both at the following links (I made them so you can toggle the browser windows between them to compare more easily):

Double Dud Test Results - Myth II 1.4.3

Double Dud Test Results - Myth II 1.5 Beta 1

btw, i did look at this (not sure that anyone commented yet.)

it is intriguing. duds are about as common in 1.5b1 as 1.4.3 - but rebounding is more common in 1.5b1. also, most of the 1.5 duds rebounded first - which wasnt the case for 1.4...

will you be doing this test for 1.3? (to see if 1.3 is similar to 1.5)

Website · Post by **iron** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:24 pm

Hrm - I'd say the tests need to be run more. According to the setup of the tag, bottles should bounce 16.7% of the time on average. In 1.4.3 it was a little less than this, in 1.5 it was a little more. Chances are you could run it again and have them swap places, given the vagaries of randomness. Only testing will tell.

Orlando the Axe · Post by **Orlando the Axe** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:00 am

Standard deviation should take care of that.

The Tain

Whoa....time out folks - My proposal