Simulation rules - should they be modified?

[peterstock]

There are a few bugs in the simulation rules that have been discovered/exploited:

1 - Collision detection doesn't occur outside the rectangular area, so after lauching the armadillo to the top of the screen, it will pass through any materials and fall back down.

2 - When links overlap but don't have enough space to get away from each other (and aren't under enough force to break), they can move without any source or energy. This 'dark force' has been used to make engines (see the Casius-ferris-wheel, Casius-motorcycle, Casius-Pistons, Force Clockwork, EscapeFromTheDarkForceFactory levels).

3 - Similarly to 2, when the armadillo is colliding with something, but there isn't space to resolve the collision (it's being squashed), it can revolve - creating movement with no source of energy.

The question is - should the game be changed to fix/remove these bugs/features? Changing the simulation rules would not affect 'normal' solutions significantly, but would obviously affect any levels/solutions which exploit them. Any changes would also make most spectator levels fail in their intended operation due to the 'butterfly effect' - since these levels rely heavily on the precise repeatability of the simulation.

[dudiobugtron]

Definitely change!! The game will be much better for it.

However there should still be some way to view the old solutions/levels, because they are really cool - maybe you can have a switch to turn the old rules on, or have an 'old solution viewer' or even just have an old version downloadable which you can install separately.

Also you need to figure out how to deal with the 'solutions' pages fairly once the changes are made!

[PeterT]

You could fix them, but change the string in the beginning of all .lvl files made with the new version to "Arm2" or something like that (from "ArmR"). Use the old rules for "ArmR" levels. This would result in some code bloat I guess, so it's not optimal, but I believe it's the best way to go. It would be too bad if we didn't have a way to view all the old "force" solutions.

[Armadillo Man]

I'm in favour of fixing the bugs. People who've used these bugs in their solutions haven't really been playing fair, IMO, and it doesn't bother me if those solutions become invalid. Everyone who uses these bugs in their solutions are aware that they are, in fact, bugs (and thus may be removed from future versions), so I don't think they have any right to complain if the bugs are fixed.

People who've been making levels based on these bugs and exploits must have been aware of this as well, and must surely know that their levels may stop working in future updates. So I don't see this as a major problem either, even though there are some pretty smart "dark force"-levels out there.

However, I do think it would be a problem if normal spectator levels and other levels becomes incompatible with the new version. Perhaps, as dudiobugtron says, there should be a way to switch the improved physics on and off - maybe there could be a flag in the level files/solutions made with the new version to signify that these have to use the fixed physics engine, while old levels and solutions revert to the old engine?

That would also cause less problems with the solutions page on the website - it could stop accepting any new solutions based on the old physics rules, but do nothing (except marking) the old solutions that are there allready? Then maybe you could get someone from the community to moderate the solutions page by going through the best solutions to the built in levels (and other popular sets) and manually making the scores of winning "dark force"-solutions invalid so that people with the new version have a chance to compete? I know this isn't an ideal solution.

[Skrying]

I'd like to see all of them fixed (heck, I'd pay money again for it... dont get any bright ideas! ).

I'm fine with old levels becoming incompatible.

[Critters]

I would leave it as is, the contests have rules to cope with these "features"

[kingofthespill]

Personally I think it goes back to your design. For all three of those situations I don't see anything in the instructions that says they belong in the program. "1" seems the worst, like the laws of physics change outside the construction area. "2" obviously hit a nerve with some folks. Although it seems as plausible as floating anchor points and magical portals, getting "force" without purchasing expensive, glowing "force" materials does not seem like a good design. That opens the possibility of different kinds of "force" items to buy, power-ups, etc. and then your talking about another game. "3" seems like an understandable compromise that you didn't have a simple way to program around. Perhaps there is some other way around it, but if not it seems like a minor bug. I am guessing that you would need to change alot of code to get rid of "welding" as well, and some of the other ways that physics is broken when colliding objects pass safely through one another. This is not a college physics simulation luckily, and it works great for a game.

I hope that you allow folks to run the current version levels as is. There are many ways to do this, like through installing the new version in a "1.1" directory or allowing the new version to be started with a command line switch to go to "/v1.0" mode. It seems simple that any level or solution can be checked for node-material intersection on loading (in the update).

I think people will continue to make "1.0" spectator levels and solutions, no matter what changes.

[tmcsweeney]

Changing the physics solver will subtley change and probably break all existing levels and solutions regardless of whether they obviously use "The Force" or any of the other bugs.

I think the proposed solution of adding a flag to the level header which indicates which physics solver to use seems like the most sensible. All new levels (and their corresponding solutions) would have the extra flag inidicating that they should use the "fixed" solver. All old levels, their existing solutions and future solutions derived from them would be missing the flag and use the old solver.

Cheers
Tim.

[BFC]

The dual code path is surely the way to go. The game is very small size wise and it will not be a problem to have it grow some.

This way all the old things keep working and we can move on from here with new designs that won't have the crutches we currently use like the force, welding and out of bounds stuff. These bugs can be entertaining occasionally and thus we'll have the old code base to run them.

-BFC

[gnachman]

Release a new version that fixes all the bugs and offers an electric motor option. The old levels will still run on the old version and people can port their dark force levels to use the electric motor.

[ArmsOfDillo]

Hello Peter,

I just got hold of this game yesterday and I'm enjoying it a lot.

Regarding changing the rules of simulation, I would say - Leave it like it is. It makes it feel more like the real universe where there are lot's of things that havent been discovered yet, and those who discover them can exploit them(let the people go on exploring and if someone finds some dark energy to exploit, it's his to use). The contests can have the rules in place to void the dark side.

Again, please leave it like it is, bugs like this make it more like the real universe where not everything is discovered.

Bye.

[m4rts]

Hi, and hello to you all as this is my first post.

When I first saw the levels using the Force, I was mystified as to how such complex levels could be solved so cheaply. The answer is, as always - to cheat!

We can all identify a solution that cheats, so why rule it out? Everyone knows who's doing it and it certainly makes for some fascinating constructs and solutions.

Personally, my solutions will continue to obey the accurate laws of physics - none of my solutions will involve use of the Force. I just couldn't look myself in the mirror.

Therefore I propose leaving the sim engine as it is - any change would surely affect the performance in some way, which would make all of us that know its foibles intimately have to relearn. No-one would like that and you probably wouldn't sell many copies.

Maybe introduce a couple of new materials or features that could - get this - be used in your previous solutions to enhance them even further. We'd all buy that!

In practical terms, please give us mega undo levels and a minimise button.

Regards to all my fellow addicts,



m4rts

[Muppet]

I like the 'force' even though at the moment I am only producing non-force solutions. I think that particular bug opens up a whole new creative aspect to the game and will contribute to its longevity as a game. As long as the compo rules cater for both types of solution, or are explicitly for light or dark I am happy with that.

The one thing that does annoy me a little is the way cloth can pass through cloth particularly at nodes. May apply to other things also but its particularly noticable with cloth. If that is inedeed a bug and fixing that means no more 'force', then I say leave things as they are. I can live with it

[Cold]

Please, FIX the bugs! The most annoying thing is that the "force" occupied top places at the level solutions list at the main page.

I almost abandoned this game when I saw the force.. and the fact that force solutions are in the same list as normal solutions. But, then I went to this forum and saw that all of you agree that this a bug, I was a little relieved.

[Andrew]

I personally rarely, if ever use the force & would welcome its removal