Talk:Groove theory

Post-Release Comments

I got bored with it, and lag makes it harder to use. So here it is. This article can use some substantial cleaning up. Discussion/flames/complaining goes here. --Jmccorm 18:35, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

It's entirely bullshit. I've had multiple succesful actions in a row before with all sorts of lag times between them... 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds. It's all random...--Milo 19:25, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The game uses a random number generator. --Kevan 19:49, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

This made me laugh. --Daranz 19:56, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

What is your random number generator seeded by? --Jmccorm 20:07, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

A fine theory, but random number generators are (1) generally seeded once, so even if it's seeded by the clock, that won't matter and (2) there's no mathematical reason to believe that every 8th second, used as a random number seed, translates into a "hit" with a weapon. Unless the random number generator is seconds since epoch % 8 or something similarly absurd (which I assume it isn't), it just doesn't work that way. All that said, it's a fun theory. John 20:30, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Depends on the implementation. For example, the web server launches a new binary/application to handle the map input for each user. If one of the first things it does is seeds the random number generator (which would be provided by a library), and then pulls out and stores some random numbers, then those random numbers are always going to be the same as long as the server load is low. (Clarification... the seeding of the random number generator could be done automatically by the library based on wall-clock time, or it could be done explicitly inside of the code.) Therefore, the same random number (or set of potential random numbers that are favorable) could be generated around the same wall-clock time. It'd be interesting to see what Kevan has to say on the seeding. (If he's not laughing his ass off.) --Jmccorm 20:47, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Actually, gosh, I take this back completely - there is some pattern to the random numbers, playing around with them; "srand(time())" actually brings back some pretty terrible patterns, and an eight-second wait will catch some of these. I've changed the code to use a different mechanism, so Groove Theory won't work any more. (And would have looked into this earlier if anyone had actually told me about it, of course.) --Kevan 21:13, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

I officially feel stupid. Sorry, jmc.--Milo 21:16, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Not a problem. It was pretty outrageous claim. --Jmccorm 23:19, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

So is it really that useful or interesting to have "there was a bug that's now fixed" as a Wiki page? --Kevan 09:27, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'd say keep it around, if only so we can point out to people "This is what you're talking about, and it's been fixed". Useful to have this sort of reference around, you know... -- Odd Starter 09:43, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

I've just stumbled in, and I'm very impressed with Jmccorm's ability to discern the groove, and Kevan's ability to track it down. I vote historical artefact, interesting, keep! --Jim Bubba 10:18, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

If I had only known about this sooner... --MikeGnz 01:28, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

Pre-Release Comments

...you don't believe the random number generator is random? You think it spits out good results in streaks? There's a post on the forum about this--Milo 06:21, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

This article is...uh... not so good. It basically says that there may or may not be a cheat, and it may or may not work, and it probably does something, but we can't say what. In other words, it contains almost no information besides some vague references to the nature of the cheat. I'm not saying that somebody should reveal the cheat, but this article seem kinda pointless to me --Daranz 13:12, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

This reads a lot like the made-up "how to unlock the magic helicopter" cheats you find in online cheat archives. It's hard to imagine that any serious exploit would remain in place for very long, if it had been reported to Kevan. And it's irresponsible to tell people to look for it if it hasn't. But I'm guessing this is rubbish, or a simple misunderstanding of how the game is supposed to work ("if you get killed, you can stand up!!"). It's doing absolutely nothing for the Wiki. --Spiro 13:51, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

Fat Groove

Heh. Fat groove will still work.....

A new groove???

I think it may be possible that there is a new grove around. It seems that actions taken about three or four seconds after each other will have the same result. I'm sorry about the inacuracy of my timeing so far, but the time is about how long it usually takes me to load a page. I'd been wondering if this might be the case for a while but today I had my first real "The RNG Shouldn't Do This" moment.

My zombie character was able to single handly destroy a VS+2 barricade in under 20 AP. I logged in with 50, sood up for 1, attacked until it dropped, entered the building and I had 31 AP left. (The rest of my AP went to killing a human who had 30 HP to start with and then starting on a second one.) --RedKnight 07:57, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think he's right. I was searching every 8 seconds and got about 36 out of 40 searches giving somthing. and giving for error in my counting, he might be right with 4 second thing. --Brill One 23:56, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me; I've experienced similar myself. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this. It is ridiculously easy to find FAKS with this -- when searching in powered hospitals, every 6-8 seconds, there is a (one second long, I think) window when I get three FAKs in three consecutive search. Sometimes just two, if I miss the beginning, but sometimes I can get as much as four if the page reloads fast enough. Tybalt Peroni 09:55, 13 May 2009 (BST)