Login to BatWeb
Forgot your password?
BatMUD Forums > Bs > Re: uninteresting commentary
I have had very mixed experiences getting bugs which are not exploits fixed,
and the whole process can start feeling so crazy I've been thinking of writing
an actual guide on the subject. I've found two real nasty ones during my play
time, and a third I thought was a gamebreaker but which was actually just a
collection of quirks that fooled me even though I tested how it worked for
half an hour (status on those quirks is ignored). On each of those occasions
the response was indeed quick, on the other hand, they were in actively
maintained places or alarming enough that anyone browsing my report would want
it looked at. With minor bugs for inactive areas though, it can be like
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it's not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it's not "just a part of the game now", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority. One example of this is the well of
infinite undead in Doobie's, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I'm pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I'm not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a "why bother" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
and the whole process can start feeling so crazy I've been thinking of writing
an actual guide on the subject. I've found two real nasty ones during my play
time, and a third I thought was a gamebreaker but which was actually just a
collection of quirks that fooled me even though I tested how it worked for
half an hour (status on those quirks is ignored). On each of those occasions
the response was indeed quick, on the other hand, they were in actively
maintained places or alarming enough that anyone browsing my report would want
it looked at. With minor bugs for inactive areas though, it can be like
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it's not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it's not "just a part of the game now", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority. One example of this is the well of
infinite undead in Doobie's, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I'm pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I'm not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a "why bother" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
Rating:
7
Votes:
7
Presence wrote:
I have had very mixed experiences getting bugs which are not exploits fixed,
and the whole process can start feeling so crazy I've been thinking of writing
an actual guide on the subject. I've found two real nasty ones during my play
time, and a third I thought was a gamebreaker but which was actually just a
collection of quirks that fooled me even though I tested how it worked for
half an hour (status on those quirks is ignored). On each of those occasions
the response was indeed quick, on the other hand, they were in actively
maintained places or alarming enough that anyone browsing my report would want
it looked at. With minor bugs for inactive areas though, it can be like
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it's not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it's not "just a part of the game now", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority. One example of this is the well of
infinite undead in Doobie's, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I'm pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I'm not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a "why bother" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
and the whole process can start feeling so crazy I've been thinking of writing
an actual guide on the subject. I've found two real nasty ones during my play
time, and a third I thought was a gamebreaker but which was actually just a
collection of quirks that fooled me even though I tested how it worked for
half an hour (status on those quirks is ignored). On each of those occasions
the response was indeed quick, on the other hand, they were in actively
maintained places or alarming enough that anyone browsing my report would want
it looked at. With minor bugs for inactive areas though, it can be like
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it's not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it's not "just a part of the game now", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority. One example of this is the well of
infinite undead in Doobie's, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I'm pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I'm not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a "why bother" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
player base will reflect it. Just leave bugs.
- blackstar -
Rating:
-12
Votes:
12
Quote:
With minor bugs for inactive areas though, it can be like
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it\'s not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it\'s not \"just a part of the game now\", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority.
pulling teeth. First you need to make sure it\'s not a feature (it can be VERY
easy to mistake some features for bugs), then you have to ponder if you can
convince someone that it\'s not \"just a part of the game now\", and then you
have to find someone with actual authority.
1) Report a bug. See who it\'s getting assigned to. If it\'s not assigned
automatically and you want it fixed, talk to the nearest unidle wiz and ask
them to reassign it (it\'s a matter of seconds to do the actual reassign, if
wiz is able to figure our the appropriate person. Most wizards will be able to
do so, th 50+ ones will have beter chance of finding it out in case they don\'t
know I guess).
2) Wait a while. You know, all the stuff I wrote in the previous post about
life and stuff.
3) If nothign happens, talk to the person who the bug is assignes, or has been
reassigned to. If that\'s not possible (the wiz is not around, and whatnot,
and the bug doesn\'t let you sleep tight) - try to find another active wiz.
Lots of wizzes have expanded access and will be able to and (I won\'t be
afraid of this even if I speak for myself only now) even are willing to help
you.
4) If still nothing happens, well, then you might have bad luck, try again in a
week.
In a nutshell, what i wanted to say is that don\'t be afraid to talk, noone\'s
gonna zap you for reporting a potential (even if it\'s potential only and not
a real one) bug. If the wiz has no time, or anything you ranswer would be like
\"sorry, busy, try someone else\" or just silence.
We have a backlog of bugs, yes. Due to that or this reason. Many of us do our
best to get it fixed and solved, but believe me, the amount of reports coming
exceeds the amoung of free time by far. Even reading the bug and trying to
check out its validity takes time. And sometimes checking bug\'s validity
takes MUCH more time than actually fixing the thing itself. You have to
understand and appreciate that as well. Yet again, that can be figure by just
talking to a wiz in question, and without \"pulling teeth\", the only teeth
you\'re pulling in that case are your own
Quote:
One example of this is the well of
infinite undead in Doobie\'s, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I\'m pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I\'m not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a \"why bother\" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
infinite undead in Doobie\'s, a legacy from the days when monsters could fight
each other. I\'m pretty sure that I finally got someone to agree to fix it, but
I think they either forgot or it was decided that Doobie wanted dozens upon
dozens of undead to accrue there as the boot wore on. Anyway, I\'m not really
going anywhere with this, I just wanted to say that some (arch)wizards are
active and meticulous, and others very much have a \"why bother\" attitude to
fixing things. Knowing the name of a coder in my opinion lets me gauge the age
of a problem, and thus the chance I have of actually getting someone to take
it seriously.
activity, in mood, in attitude, etc, etc. I can assure you out of experience,
that as well, many of us glance the bugreports database along even without
checking who the bug is assigned to, and if the bugfixing won\'t cross the
\"nettiquette\" or will not violate privacy of wizard\'s premises, we fix them
nasty little buggers. A lot of code is available for wizards to work on at
will, more or less. It might require arch-approval or arch presence at a
latter stage, but it can be worked on right on the spot.
Except bugreports we have tonns of typoreports, valid or not coming though, we
have ideas, everything is logged, sorted and worked on, just in due time.
If you care a lot, come an talk, don\'t be \"caring\" in the dark corner of
your own pcity room.
Yet again, this is my personal opinion and the opinion of archwizards and/or
Bat Ry might differ from it, so please take it as that.
^o^
Rating:
2
Votes:
3
Quote:
One example of this is the well of infinite undead in Doobie\'s
Then again, too much desting in that area, better to just avoid it.
© 1990-2025 Balanced Alternative Techniques ry. All rights reserved. BatMUD™ is a registered trademark of Balanced Alternative Techniques ry.
The individual comments are the property of their posters, and may not reflect the views or opinions of the administration.