Home    LittleBigPlanet 1 - PSP - Tearaway -Run Sackboy Run    LittleBigPlanet 1    [LBP1] Everything Else LittleBigPlanet 1 [Archive]
#1

Screwed up jumping.

Archive: 52 posts

I was wondering if anyone elses jumps have been meesed up, or off by a little bit in the game ever since the update that brought online create and all that (i forgot the name) right before the POTC pack released (th was the last one i was able to download)
Its just that the timing of jumps and all that has been a bit off, i didn't really noticed it before, but not that i'm playing my levels to re-vamp them, i saw that a lot of the jumps were off, and it wasn't like that before.
So am i just imagining things or did something happen?		2010-03-18 23:05:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

Maybe after a bit of a break from them you realized that your levels are..... REALLY HARD!


Actually, I haven't noticed a difference. But, then again, some of the jumps in your levels need to be pinpoint.		2010-03-18 23:10:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

Maybe after a bit of a break from them you realized that your levels are..... REALLY HARD!

Actually, I haven't noticed a difference. But, then again, some of the jumps in your levels need to be pinpoint.

Exactly, they have to be pinpoint!
I can't have jumping physics changing now and then, it'd ruin them...
For now i've been editing stuff to fit to the new physics (if any), but as i said, i'm still not sure if its me going crazy or the game, so i need confirmations.		2010-03-18 23:14:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

Exactly, they have to be pinpoint!
I can't have jumping physics changing now and then, it'd ruin them...
For now i've been editing stuff to fit to the new physics (if any), but as i said, i'm still not sure if its me going crazy or the game, so i need confirmations.

I can't say that I've noticed anything, but TBH, I don't have anything like the skill level required for those kinds of jumps, so if there is a slight difference then I doubt I'd notice it. In honesty though, I can't see them make a change to sometihng like that. Considering how careful they've been in the past to avoid breaking levels, something as obvious as not changing the abilities of the player should be safe.

Have you been playing LBP during your time away, or not. If you are out of practice, you might just be down to the skill level of mere mortals 		2010-03-19 00:17:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I can't say that I've noticed anything, but TBH, I don't have anything like the skill level required for those kinds of jumps, so if there is a slight difference then I doubt I'd notice it. In honesty though, I can't see them make a change to sometihng like that. Considering how careful they've been in the past to avoid breaking levels, something as obvious as not changing the abilities of the player should be safe.

Have you been playing LBP during your time away, or not. If you are out of practice, you might just be down to the skill level of mere mortals

If it wasn't for LBP or Manga i download i'd gone crazy a long time ago w/out the internet, and LBP is the one i play the most, so i doubt its the out of practice explanation.		2010-03-19 00:32:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

Considering how careful they've been in the past to avoid breaking levels, something as obvious as not changing the abilities of the player should be safe.

Although some slight physics changes DID hurt "Jacques the Acadian Warlord". After a major update the physics with the conveyor belts moving the gold-filled boxes ended up being much more bouncy than originally, which messed up some of my platforming - and I never got it to work right again (although it still works). So, there is definately the possibility of slight physics changes.		2010-03-19 03:59:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

A possible change in physics? Unfortunately, I don't usually play levels that require precise jumps, so I am not sure if anything has changed. I'm not sure why Media Molecule would change the physics of jumping and not tell us. Since you're not out of practice, I'm honestly not sure why you're seeing a difference. Have you tried other levels besides your own and see if there is a difference? That's what I recommend trying.2010-03-19 05:32:00

Author:
Silverpanther
Posts: 156

I'm suprised how many people don't notice these things, but the jumping in LBP has always been off since the game's release.

No matter how skilled a player you can possibly become, there is always a randomness to the jump measurements in this game. I know these things all too well because I spend all my time with extremely hard levels in LBP in both play mode and create. So I often die from a glitchy jump mechanic.

There's even a jump issue where the jump button will completely stop working for a few secs depending on the momentum and angle you land on a platform.

Then there's an issue where you can do a normal jump as high as you can go (by pressing X down all the way), but the game makes it a light jump (which normally only happens by tapping the X as light and fast as possible), and the same can be said vice versa.

Plus there are others not coming to mind.		2010-03-21 17:52:00

Author:
Unknown User

theres also the glitch were standing on a 90 degree angle increases your height greatly, also i find jump in one direction then quickly changing direction can get you ontop of some platforms that are just out of reach.2010-03-21 18:52:00

Author:
Littlebigdude805
Posts: 1924

A possible change in physics? Unfortunately, I don't usually play levels that require precise jumps, so I am not sure if anything has changed. I'm not sure why Media Molecule would change the physics of jumping and not tell us. Since you're not out of practice, I'm honestly not sure why you're seeing a difference. Have you tried other levels besides your own and see if there is a difference? That's what I recommend trying.


I'm suprised how many people don't notice these things, but the jumping in LBP has always been off since the game's release.

No matter how skilled a player you can possibly become, there is always a randomness to the jump measurements in this game. I know these things all too well because I spend all my time with extremely hard levels in LBP in both play mode and create. So I often die from a glitchy jump mechanic.

There's even a jump issue where the jump button will completely stop working for a few secs depending on the momentum and angle you land on a platform.

Then there's an issue where you can do a normal jump as high as you can go (by pressing X down all the way), but the game makes it a light jump (which normally only happens by tapping the X as light and fast as possible), and the same can be said vice versa.

Plus there are others not coming to mind.

SilverPanther: I can't really play other's levels since i don't have internet at the moment, the only level that i have that's not mine is Defmunky666's "Desert Survival 3" level, but that's a bomb survival game and its not really the best to test out jumping.

Stilettos: Yes indeed jumping physics have been off since way back when, but they're usually of in a stable matte, what i mean is that they don't change constantly at least not significantly, and this is a major change in a minimal matter, meaning that it doesn't affect regular gameplay, but it does to what used to be the previous "precise" gameplay.		2010-03-21 19:32:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

@littlebigdude and anyone interested:

That is called a super jump, a technique that was mastered in the expert community, as we often exploit play glitches that the average player either does not know about, or they found out but don't know how to trigger it on command. There's also an inverted super jump that is done by jumping into a corner and it works the same as an edge. Then there is also a super jump from a curved surface where landing at a certain angle and jumping again also gives extra height. Then there are double and triple super jumps. A double super jump involves an edge or curve, but does not require standing on the tip of edge (edge as example), instead you stand very close to the tip where your legs start to angle, but not to the point where you start shaking, then jump and you'll go higher than a regular super jump. A triple super jump, which is the highest jump possible from a glitch in LBP involves precisely jumping two times or more off the very tip of an edge, which means you have to precisely land on the tip at least two times in a row and you'll be boosted very high. This can be done from a curve also, but is much harder to do from a curve. Double and triple super jumps cannot be done from corners, only edges and curves. These jump measurements do not consider momentum, like if platform was moving, or some other effect to help boost height. I am referring to stationary plats.

Another thing to note about glitches like a super jump is that when the camera is turned a certain angle, the glitch either completely stops or does not work most the time with it suddenly deciding to work on few attempts.

@silverleon:

Hmm. Well whatever you are experiencing I have never come across, or I have and I just don't get what you mean.		2010-03-21 22:01:00

Author:
Unknown User

So am i just imagining things or did something happen?

I never noticed any changes.

What I have heard a lot is that the way in which your PS3 is connected to your TV makes a BIG difference in LBP. If you're not using an HDMI connection, the gameplay can be very strange and laggy.		2010-03-23 18:22:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

I'm actually glad I read this topic, as I am working on a level that has some platforming elements. I personally despise precise jumping levels (especially the dang narrow landing zones), but ended up adding a small area anyway because I couldn't think of anything better to do at the moment. I initially created the platforms so that I could easily jump to them about 9 out of 10 tries. Then suddenly last night, I couldn't make some of the jumps 1 out of 5 times. I figured it may have been one too many glasses of potato juice, but when I tried it again this morning, I was even more frustrated. s3xNstilettos reference to a "randomness" to the jumps seems to apply to my situation.

I solved the problem by putting an infinite life checkpoint as far away from the beginning of this jump zone as possible. Too bad, no one will keep playing to see the end of the level, as I'm sure it's going to be pretty cool.		2010-03-23 18:48:00

Author:
RoharDragontamer
Posts: 397

I never noticed any changes.

What I have heard a lot is that the way in which your PS3 is connected to your TV makes a BIG difference in LBP. If you're not using an HDMI connection, the gameplay can be very strange and laggy.

Yeah... the only problem with that is that i haven't really changed my T.v. since i started playing LBP.		2010-03-28 19:43:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

Yeah... the only problem with that is that i haven't really changed my T.v. since i started playing LBP.

But is it HDMI or not?

Everyone who's previously mentioned this as a problem were using non-HDMI TVs, and said the problem went away when they switched to HDMI.		2010-03-28 20:13:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

But is it HDMI or not?

Everyone who's previously mentioned this as a problem were using non-HDMI TVs, and said the problem went away when they switched to HDMI.

The way you connected to your TV doesn't change anything to the game. What happened to this people is probably that they were playing in low-res and when they hooked up in HDMI they played in high res for the first time. Now, playing in low-res or high-res still doesn't change anything to the game's physics. What can happen though is that you feel your TV's lag. There's lag because the TV needs to take the low-res image, redimention it so it covers your high-res screen and finally it displays it. This takes some milliseconds and it's enough to make you feel something changed.

.


And the jumps in LBP aren't hazardeous. It's just because it's entirely physics based. Like it or not, it's such complex calculation that decides what your jump is that you rarely get the exact same answer at the end of the equation. If you do the exact same thing, if EVERTHING is identical twice, the jump WILL be identical. There's no randomness.

.		2010-03-28 20:24:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

And the jumps in LBP aren't hazardeous. It's just because it's entirely physics based. Like it or not, it's such complex calculation that decides what your jump is that you rarely get the exact same answer at the end of the equation. If you do the exact same thing, if EVERTHING is identical twice, the jump WILL be identical. There's no randomness.

This is a common misconception the average player, and some advanced, likes to think, at least most anyways.

You're right and wrong at the same time. You're right about the physics sytem, but what you are wrong about is that if the same exact thing is done twice then there is never randomness to the action output. A good amount of the time it works right, but very often the jumps will not come out the same way you input. You can do the exact same thing and it won't always work. The same goes for any function, including grabbing. It's because of the physics system and button sensitivity that this occurs. When using such a complicated system as the physics and have it function by button sensitivity, then it is impossible for the action to always come out the same as you input it. Generally the idea works, but it will always be flawed. It's a new idea in gaming, and until further companies adopt the physics/button sensitivity idea and perfect it, it will remain with flaws.

Generally months of moon testing, creating, and playing in the expert community reveal these things all too well. Until you play constantly in an extreme environment you cannot possibly know just how flawed the system is. The reason this isn't noticeable to many players is because their jumps can be a lot more off than the kind of jumps required in extreme platformers. Therefor it isn't as apparent. Sometimes the buttons won't work at all, like grab doesn't do its job, or X doesn't do its job.

Now this random factor does not mean everytime a jump doesn't work right that it was the game. In some cases, mainly among non-expert players, they might not have used the right sensitivity and timing on their part. This happens to even experts, though very rare since we are accustomed like 2nd nature to the jump measurements, and game mechanics in general.		2010-03-28 21:47:00

Author:
Unknown User

So you're saying the same thing as me, just in a longer to read form.
There's is no randomness in the game. The impression that there is will come from people not being able to exactly reproduce that jump because of a myriad of factors.		2010-03-29 17:57:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

So you're saying the same thing as me, just in a longer to read form.
There's is no randomness in the game. The impression that there is will come from people not being able to exactly reproduce that jump because of a myriad of factors.

No I am not saying the same thing as you.

Just like a lot of players not too experienced, you don't realize these things. It isn't your fault, so there's not really a way to explain it to someone that refuses to take advice. I'll just throw out a test for you.

When a button fails to work, it is random. That isn't suppose to happen. There are moon tests you can set up that show these things, but because it's random it won't always do what im about to explain. But most the time it will.

One test is to place a hazard block on each side of your sack as close to you as possible without being killed (3 small grid squares apart). Make sure your sack is perfectly stable. Don't touch anything on controller. When you're ready start jumping, but only press X. Make sure they are solid presses so you're doing full jumps. Now with no randomness you would simply jump without moving even the slightest bit in either direction, so you will keep coming down safe no matter how many times you jump. However, what usually happens is you'll either move left or right a little and will eventually hit hazard. The movement is almost unnoticeable. Sometimes you won't move at all. Keep jumping for at least a minute or two. Shouldn't even take a minute before hitting hazard on either left or right. Anyways, point being when you're doing the exact same constant action (in a controlled environment) and the game doesn't always put out the same output, then that is randomness.

Trying to tell me I'm wrong is an insult. There are tests, reasearchers from the expert community can tell you this. I am one. Do that test I just gave you and you'll see. Researchers, simply meaning expert player creators that spend a great deal of time testing play mechanics on moon and in play mode.		2010-03-30 04:14:00

Author:
Unknown User

No I am not saying the same thing as you.

Just like a lot of players not too experienced, you don't realize these things. It isn't your fault, so there's not really a way to explain it to someone that refuses to take advice. I'll just throw out a test for you.

When a button fails to work, it is random. That isn't suppose to happen. There are moon tests you can set up that show these things, but because it's random it won't always do what im about to explain. But most the time it will.

One test is to place a hazard block on each side of your sack as close to you as possible without being killed (3 small grid squares apart). Make sure your sack is perfectly stable. Don't touch anything on controller. When you're ready start jumping, but only press X. Make sure they are solid presses so you're doing full jumps. Now with no randomness you would simply jump without moving even the slightest bit in either direction, so you will keep coming down safe no matter how many times you jump. However, what usually happens is you'll either move left or right a little and will eventually hit hazard. The movement is almost unnoticeable. Sometimes you won't move at all. Keep jumping for at least a minute or two. Shouldn't even take a minute before hitting hazard on either left or right. Anyways, point being when you're doing the exact same constant action (in a controlled environment) and the game doesn't always put out the same output, then that is randomness.

Trying to tell me I'm wrong is an insult. There are tests, reasearchers from the expert community can tell you this. I am one. Do that test I just gave you and you'll see. Researchers, simply meaning expert player creators that spend a great deal of time testing play mechanics on moon and in play mode.

Are you dense? You are an "expert" player that really believes in yourself while I am actually develloping videogames as my career. I know about how games are designed, made, produced and published. I know about programmation and how physics are made and works.

There's no such things as a button that "fails" first off. Unless your controller is having enough wear and tear (but then it's not the game's problem). Secondo, you can't have a perfect controlled test because Sackboy simply can't be controlled perfectly. Therefore there's an error margin in your test that is actually demonstrated by the fact your Sackboy will go left or right a bit when you successively jump at the same place. I also know how and why this happens if ever you want to know.

How much time there is between your jumps in your super test there? Jumping successively will increase your error rate ALOT because Sackboy is a material like anything else in the game. It's having its own friction, force, springness, etc. When you land, gravity was pushing Sackboy down and vs its durability, Sackboy squishes. This is why you can pull off a higher jump if timed right. Anyways, what I meant to explain here is that if you jump successively and multiple time, you won't have the same result unless you jump again PERFECTLY timed, wich should be extremely hard to do unless you wait between each jump. Add to this that the longer you press, the higher Sackboy goes and this is also very precise. Like it or not, the nature of LBP's coding makes it insanely hard to reproduce the same thing twice --- hence why you get the results you get. This is however not randomness but human error.

.		2010-03-30 15:33:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

This is however not randomness but human error.

Whilst this is true, it's not entirely accurate to claim that there is only human error in the system. Yes the algorithm will produce the same result from the same input data, but considering part of that input data is the current position of the player, it's not possible to actually input the exact same data to the algorithm through the control system in place. Especially once you consider that part of the input data is the current position of the player. Whilst not strictly accurate to call it "random", it's a given that there will be noise / error introduced by the system, in addition to what is introduced by the player.

Whether or not a player has sufficient perception to detect such error in normal play, considering the overwhelming dominance of the human error due to analogue control / timing etc, is another matter.		2010-03-30 15:50:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yes the algorithm will produce the same result from the same input data, but considering part of that input data is the current position of the player, it's not possible to actually input the exact same data to the algorithm through the control system in place. Especially once you consider that part of the input data is the current position of the player. Whilst not strictly accurate to call it "random", it's a given that there will be noise / error introduced by the system, in addition to what is introduced by the player.

Whether or not a player has sufficient perception to detect such error in normal play, considering the overwhelming dominance of the human error due to analogue control / timing etc, is another matter.

^^ This. (Although I wouldn't personally describe the game physics and environment "noise / error", but I understand what you're saying.)

There are a variety of things that can change the way your sackboy jumps, including velocity, momentum and any number of environmental factors. But if you were to send a controlled input source (i.e. a program that sends precise instructions as if it were the player's own input) in place of the controller in your hand, the results would be identical every time.

Bottom line is, if you're noticing something going wrong with your jumping, then it's most likely the user input that is at fault.		2010-03-30 16:42:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

Not sure if it was touched upon exactly, but I would think the controller could be at fault as well causing some of the variables regardless of player skill. How someone presses the button is one thing. How well charged the controller or if slightly flawed due to construction, worn springs, controller damage, reception quality if it is a blue tooth, would all be considerations or at least should be in the testing.

As schm0 said, if it is a program sending the input, then the results should be identical every time given the code in the software is well written and had no flaws or memory leaks.		2010-03-30 17:01:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

As schm0 said, if it is a program sending the input, then the results should be identical every time given the code in the software is well written and had no flaws or memory leaks.

Many of you seem to be making the unfounded assertion that there's no deliberate pseudo-randomness in the game itself. This is something that would be difficult to determine without reading the game's source code, so why speculate about it?		2010-03-30 17:12:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

@RangerZero:

For someone who says they develop video games as a career is hard to believe when you make a statement like that. Any game can glitch or bug. Some do extremely often, even in non-physics games. So you are either blind or live under a rock. So your statement about "I know about how games are designed, made, produced, and published." means absolutely nothing here. But seriously, I believe you. But that means nothiong if you're going to leave out that every game can bug or glitch or do what the developers did not intend for it to do.

The game developers themselves don't even notice these things half the time until the players disover it. The players of games typically find out more about the game than the developers know. Randomness exists in every game. But a game like LBP is really bad at it. Randomness exists in games because it is technology, and technology is made by humans. But with something more complex like physics is even more prone to. Technology can fail at any given moment, even if for a second. So even if input A (exact same actions for the input as developed) was designed to only make action B (exact action that only occurs when exact A is introduced) output, then that still doesn't mean that will always happen. Game developers make games that are suppose to do this output when that exact input is introduced, but guess what? It is impossible to see the errors and flaws in the system from a developer stand point. This is where Beta testing comes in handy. But even after beta testing, game flaws and bugs not noticed, or didn't exists before, can emerge at any given time. No game is stable or exact. So human player error plus game error are both possible factors in things going wrong.

As for your explaination about the jump test. I figured you were going to reply saying something like that. I guess I should have explained more clearly, but I assumed you would figure out that you can adjust the test any way you like. I never said you have to jump constantly. You can wait as long as you'd like between each jump and even use a timed auto button system so that your human error won't interfere and the same thing will happen. Of course by waiting a while between each jump will take longer

Even rtm, sort of, explains it. The only thing he didn't mention are errors caused by technology, which is never stable. Like I said already, human error by the player exists. But for you to claim that it has to be human error (referring to player human error, not developer human error) when something doesn't go right is a blind statement. LBP is so bad at this that over 50% of the time it is partly due to the same action not being output by the game. And the physics system doesn't help with its myriad calculations of things that effect movement.		2010-03-30 17:15:00

Author:
Unknown User

Many of you seem to be making the unfounded assertion that there's no deliberate pseudo-randomness in the game itself. This is something that would be difficult to determine without reading the game's source code, so why speculate about it?

Ahh.. yup.. very true! It would be a fun question to ask Mm sometime. 		2010-03-30 17:19:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

soo... there may/may not be a jump error and there is/isn't a way to fix it?

EDIT: this is a statement not a question, the question mark is a little sarcastic.		2010-03-30 17:23:00

Author:
flamingemu
Posts: 1872

It might be worth noting at this point that Ranger and Ms. Stilletos really really don't seem to get along and without being rude to either of them, they are both very obstinate, so this is pretty much just going to continue as an exchange of insults and put-downs because they both know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are right.

With all due respect though, sexNStillettos, from the POV of people who actually know a fair bit about technology, your last post is mostly nonsense. I'm sorry, but the concept that the system is inherently random is complete rubbish. Computers are not magic boxes, we do understand the inner workings of them, and a properly coded algorithm will produce the same results, given the same data.		2010-03-30 17:42:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Ahh.. yup.. very true! It would be a fun question to ask Mm sometime.

Another proof might be if someone was prepared to construct a device which sent exactly the right inputs to the PS3 to, say, ace the bunker every time. If such a device could be constructed, and proven to work a reasonable number of times, then you could argue that the game is indeed truly non-random.

But since I doubt anyone would have the patience to do such a thing, combined with the lack of available source code to read, I think it's fairly safe to say that the status of LBP's 'randomness' is an unanswerable question. 		2010-03-30 17:46:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

But since I doubt anyone would have the patience to do such a thing, combined with the lack of available source code to read, I think it's fairly safe to say that the status of LBP's 'randomness' is an unanswerable question.

Absolutely. Doesn't the paintgun have clearly built in randomness. Like if you don't move your sackperson or their arm and repeatedly fire, each paintball is slightly off. Or am I just rubbish with the paintgun?		2010-03-30 17:51:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Many of you seem to be making the unfounded assertion that there's no deliberate pseudo-randomness in the game itself. This is something that would be difficult to determine without reading the game's source code, so why speculate about it?

I agree with you there. Also, one might consider that the in today's games, engine are complex and with procedural stuff like in LBP, you get alot of "rounding" going and sometimes at multiple steps in the code. This also can create unwarranted variations when you play even if it's not "randomness" by definition. But try to explain that to an expert player...


It might be worth noting at this point that Ranger and Ms. Stilletos really really don't seem to get along and without being rude to either of them, they are both very obstinate, so this is pretty much just going to continue as an exchange of insults and put-downs because they both know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are right.


hmm, you make me appear less optionated than I am. It's just that there truly is some non-sense going on around here, as you put it. You guys however sometimes find a better way to explain than me. Probably due to english being my second language :/

.		2010-03-30 17:54:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

Doesn't the paintgun have clearly built in randomness. Like if you don't move your sackperson or their arm and repeatedly fire, each paintball is slightly off.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

If not, then, I don't really know. My only goal was to try to end the argument going on here before it got too nasty, by introducing enough uncertainty to prevent anyone being able to prove that their theory is correct.

Thing is, I can kinda see either theory being correct. The game engine is kinda like a massive pseudo-randomness generator in its own right, so the question becomes, is it always 'seeded' consistently or not?

Frankly, since the outcome of the randomness determination doesn't seem to have any obvious practical benefits either way, it's something of a pointless argument.



Or am I just rubbish with the paintgun?

I'd say if you can ace jackofcourse's most recent level, you're pretty good.		2010-03-30 18:13:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Just got done reading this.... whew, interesting stuff. Unfortunately, this is a complex subject and can't be explained by comparing LittleBigPlanet to any other video game as an example, as the two are totally separate sets of code.

Technically, what RangerZero is saying is correct, and I don't think any * actual * video game developer would argue.

With simple physics, such as those found in classic arcade games which had simple analog on/off buttons and 8 or 16 way joysticks, things worked EXACTLY as you intend all the time. Each direction on the joystick was actually it's own off/on button. Even if a controller felt a bit tighter than another controller, the game was obviously working exactly the same every time. So, if you were playing Pacman you could count on consistency.

LittleBigPlanet is so complex in the physics, that even if it's working EXACTLY the same every time based on the same criteria, the criteria is so complex it's difficult for a human to see the consistency. For instance, a button doesn't just "jump". The exact pressure by which you push the button is going to determine the outcome... and this exact pressure is really difficult for a human to judge consistently.

So has there been a change in the sackboy physics that, maybe, the programmers don't even realize happened? Could be.... I think I heard they made slight changes to make plane shifting work better, and if so that could have affected a precise jump that happens when plane shifting.

But, we may never know for sure....		2010-03-30 18:20:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

Another proof might be if someone was prepared to construct a device which sent exactly the right inputs to the PS3 to, say, ace the bunker every time. If such a device could be constructed, and proven to work a reasonable number of times, then you could argue that the game is indeed truly non-random.

But since I doubt anyone would have the patience to do such a thing, combined with the lack of available source code to read, I think it's fairly safe to say that the status of LBP's 'randomness' is an unanswerable question.

Hmmm not it! That would be cool, but mind numbing to say the least. However if someone does make one, I need one of those as my sack skills are horribly random!


Absolutely. Doesn't the paintgun have clearly built in randomness. Like if you don't move your sackperson or their arm and repeatedly fire, each paintball is slightly off. Or am I just rubbish with the paintgun?

LOL!! Maybe both! Though I have noticed that it seems every 3 or maybe 4th shot is down a bit. Most frustrating in a few parts of Jack's new shooter. My right thumb is still feeling that one.		2010-03-30 18:20:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

I agree with you there. Also, one might consider that the in today's games, engine are complex and with procedural stuff like in LBP, you get alot of "rounding" going and sometimes at multiple steps in the code. This also can create unwarranted variations when you play even if it's not "randomness" by definition. This is exactly what I was alluding to in my previous post. There is of course the added implication of non-determinism in multithreaded / multicore architechtures, although I'd imagine that the level of determinism possible is suitable for the games world (it's an issue in mil/aero, but that's getting even further off topic). Also, regardless of the error that this might produce, the vast inaccuracies of even the most precise player will overrule them. Just think about timing issues, how accurately can a human press a button at a given time? You've gotta factor in an eternity in CPU cycles on the basis of human timing error, even without analogue control.

Regarding the paintenator randomness:

LOL!! Maybe both! Though I have noticed that it seems every 3 or maybe 4th shot is down a bit. Most frustrating in a few parts of Jack's new shooter. My right thumb is still feeling that one.


I can't tell if you're joking or not.

I wasn't joking in the slightest. I just got home and tested it. Make a very thin peg and attach it to DM. Aim the paintenator so it hits. Then press no other button but R1 - I get the sequence:

hit-high-low-high-higher

Then it goes back to hit again and repeats. Doesn't seem to be at all random, more a pseudorandom sequence to give the impression of recoil or something. But it seems to be perfectly rational 		2010-03-30 18:33:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Yes, it is important to realize the difference here between "perceived" randomness and actual randomness. The former suggests that there are lines of code programmed by MM (such as with the paint gun) that include randomness to some degree, in this case for a sense of realism (i.e. recoil, etc.) The latter suggests that the game has a fundamental physical flaw (included on purpose or by poor design) that says that if sackboy proceeds through a level with precisely the same input, sackboy can achieve different results.

What the "jumping" issue sounds like, to me at least, is that the player's perception is that the game is at fault when really it could be any number of things regarding the game's physics combined with the player's input. The perception to the player is "Hey, I made that jump last time and I pushed 'X' at EXACTLY that point!!!! WTF!?!?!" In reality, even the smallest change in character speed or reaction time could fundamentally change the length, height or velocity at which the player's sackboy actually jumps.

RTM is entirely correct here. The code that allows one level to appear identical across your PS3, mine and everyone else's is exactly the same code that makes sackboy jump across the gap every time given the same input and environment. Game developers do not build graphics engines around the laws of physics only to add a layer of "randomness" to frustrate the player, however slight that may be, unless that randomness is included on purpose for realism's (i.e. perception's) sake. If the case were to be made that this randomness is actually perceivable, it would be prevalent (and equally identifiable) across all user's systems.		2010-03-30 18:57:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

Exactly.... so, best thing to do to eliminate frustration - design around the Sackboy physics so that the player doesn't have to be pinpoint precise.

JackOfCourses new level - great example. Difficult, but takes into account the Sackboy physics so you can be consistent.

Every time I've said something like this I'm gotten hit over the head... but that's ok, I've got a hard head.		2010-03-30 19:12:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

@rtm:

What I'm explaining is something that doesn't even need proof because the proof is evident in everyday life. I never said developers don't understand computers. Every reply after my last post is like the post wasn't even read, or understood correctly. I stated the obvious, and that is that technology will not always do what it's suppose to do no matter how flawless or exact any code or anything is. Most the time things generally function as they should, but not always. Simple as that.

And as I said, the jump thing can be tested with an automated input that is the exact same every time. This means free of human error.

Everyone keeps saying it's pointless conversation unless you see the sourcecode, or we should ask MM. That won't solve anything, because all that shows is the coding. It doesn't matter if the coding is exact with no errors anywhere, things can still happen. What causes those things is unknown. But every game suffers from that random factor. And developers can only do so much, mainly make sure there are no errors in the coding.

I'm beginning to think there is a misunderstanding here, because what I'm explaining is common knowledge, but people keep referring to game code which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, not entirely anyways. The only way game code has anything to do with what I'm talking about is if the randomness had to do with flawed coding, but as I've said I am not referring to developer mistakes (but I did point that out as possibility). Although if there were flaws in the code, then that could cause randomness. But even assuming the coding is flawless, that doesn't mean the output will always be flawless. A random factor is always there. What causes it I don't know, except that it is related to technology. There is more than just coding making a game function. So what effect any given combination of factors has upon each other is impossible to know.

@jwwphotos:

That makes no sense, lol. Player skills and randomness are two different things. Player skills cannot be random. But of course you were joking, but that joke almost sounded like a hint or stab at what I've been saying. But I'm sure it wasn't since I never said anything about player skills being random.

@CCubbage:

Of course game developers wouldn't argue, not if they go by the coding.

Every game ever, even classic games, have the random factor. They all can bug or glitch at any given time.

As for the jump test, like I already said this thread (you must have missed it), you can use an automated jump, free of human error, and the same random thing will happen. Your sack will either slowly move left OR right OR not at all.

Anyways, you mentioned something that helps clear the air about one thing I noticed recently . . .

"I think I heard they made slight changes to make plane shifting work better"

If this is correct, this might explain why planeshifting has been happening automatically recently. I first noticed it in one of my levels where I was perfectly safe and fine on a ledge and suddenly planeshifted off the back of the platform, which was odd as something like that has never happened to me in LBP. There were no other platforms behind or near the one I planeshifted off the back to my death. I assumed it was caused by the movement of the teetering level. But then it happened in another level, and then day after that in yet another level. It's really frustrating because the planeshifting has never bugged like that before. Now this explains it. I believe that change is true, but obviously it brought error with it.		2010-03-30 19:33:00

Author:
Unknown User

Umm..... I was a 6502 assembly coder for 5 years during the classic video game era, and have been a professional software developer for 25 years.... I can safely say..... no, much of that simply isn't accurate.

It's not that I'm trying to be argumentative, it's just that I think much of what you're saying are your "theories" and aren't based in fact.

Especially in video games that have very little physics behind them, such as the classic games - things worked EXACTLY the same every single time... time and time again..... Even the CPU random number generator would produce the same values.... every single time. We would just offset them by the time of the day so that we could get a different bunch of number.

Now, I HAVE seen slightly different rounded values produced by, lets say, by chipsets by different manufacturers (such as Intel vs AMD). But the PS3 should even be pretty consistent in that regard.		2010-03-30 19:49:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

@jwwphotos:

That makes no sense, lol. Player skills and randomness are two different things. Player skills cannot be random. But of course you were joking, but that joke almost sounded like a hint or stab at what I've been saying. But I'm sure it wasn't since I never said anything about player skills being random.



lol... I was simply making a joke and meant nothing more than poking some fun at myself. I am somewhat dyslexic and at some moments I have what could be considered as really comical sack skills.		2010-03-30 19:58:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

Every reply after my last post is like the post wasn't even read...

Maybe they found that font color too much strain on their eyes.



Everyone keeps saying it's pointless conversation unless you see the sourcecode, or we should ask MM.

I believe only I said it was pointless, and if you read my post correctly, I said it was because the result has no practical value. Whatever the outcome, no-one wins anything.



But every game suffers from that random factor.

Not true. Here's my totally non-random game (in old-school C)...



main(){}


...guaranteed to do the same thing every time.



The only way game code has anything to do with what I'm talking about is if the randomness had to do with flawed coding...

So I suppose it's impossible for the code to use PRNG routines like rand()?



But even assuming the coding is flawless, that doesn't mean the output will always be flawless. A random factor is always there. What causes it I don't know, except that it is related to technology.

Well, I guess whether or not the player decides to put a sledgehammer through their PS3 or not might affect the outcome. 		2010-03-30 20:10:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Not true. Here's my totally non-random game (in old-school C)...
Code:
main(){}...guaranteed to do the same thing every time.

Holy toledo! I just hacked into MM and was able to view a bit of the LittleBigPlanet source code. I think it explains everything! Check out what I found:



int ReallyComplexJumpingRoutine()
{
if(strcmp(CurrentPSN, "s3xNstilettos") == 0)
{
RandomizeAllJumpingBehavior();
}
else
{
NormalJumpingRoutineForEveryoneElse();
}
return(0);
}


Wow, and all this time....... Mystery solved. We can probably close this thread now.
2010-03-30 20:20:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

...technology will not always do what it's suppose to do no matter how flawless or exact any code or anything is. Most the time things generally function as they should, but not always. Simple as that.

That's like saying an algebraic equation doesn't have the same solution every time. It's a patently false statement.


It doesn't matter if the coding is exact with no errors anywhere, things can still happen.

All programming languages are based (at their core) on basic mathematics. "Things" will not happen unless programmed to (or not programmed to.)


... as I've said I am not referring to developer mistakes (but I did point that out as possibility). Although if there were flaws in the code, then that could cause randomness. But even assuming the coding is flawless, that doesn't mean the output will always be flawless.

That's because games (in general) are largely dependent on user input. Again, a game can only do what it's code allows it to.


Every game ever, even classic games, have the random factor. They all can bug or glitch at any given time.

No, they "bug" and "glitch" when a specific set of criteria occur. Again, the code itself defines all of this. A bug or glitch can only occur due to limitations or flaws in the game or system's design, and even then only once a specific criteria of variables is met.

If there is a "glitch" with jumping it is either:

a) based on user input and game environment (i.e. player hitting buttons and level design) and largely circumstantial OR
b) existent on everyone's system in precisely the same way due to a flaw in programming or other such oversight

I am arguing against b due to my own observations, and the lack of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If there were really a bug with jumping, it would have been evident on patch day to everyone.


Holy toledo! I just hacked into MM and was able to view a bit of the LittleBigPlanet source code. I think it explains everything! Check out what I found:

2010-03-30 20:34:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

if(strcmp(CurrentPSN, "s3xNstilettos") != 0)

No wonder LBP is so flaky - the developers don't seem to know the correct return values for strcmp().

Oh, and you can use the [CODE] tag to make everything line up right.		2010-03-30 20:37:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

No wonder LBP is so flaky - the developers don't seem to know the correct return values for strcmp().

Oh, and you can use the [CODE] tag to make everything line up right.

Wow.... that was a close call. Everyone EXCEPT her just about got messed up. Fixed.

Yup - code tag works much better.		2010-03-30 21:02:00

Author:
CCubbage
Posts: 4430

This is pointless.

Technology messes up all the time. It's a common occurence. Yes, if the code is flawless it will do what it's suppose to do. But again, I have mentioned multiple times that there are many factors that determine whether the output will be what it's suppose to be. Coding can't run on its own.

Anyways, it's obvious since so many people here are involved in technology, either career or whatever, then no matter what they won't accept facts. The kind of people that rely on technology and think it is flawless. That is absolutely silly. There are hidden random factors in everything, things that generally can't be known or detected. So everyone is arguing against the inevitable. Something could be intefering with the system's ability to read the code right, or other random issues. And this has nothing to do with player skill. So telling me I'm wrong is just silly.

All the code stuff is pointless. Here I have been saying the whole time that everyone is right about the code, but mentioning random factors that can cause non-player controlled things to occur, but yet everyone is still repeating the same argument that code isn't wrong . . .

So the argument has gone like this, almost like its a prank on me . . .

A) There are random factors to the controls in this game.
B) There are no random factors. If the code is error proof then same output will always occur with exact same input.
A) Regardless of whether the code is right or wrong doesn't matter. I'm talking about random factors. It doesn't have to do with the code, so why talk about the code.
B) There are no random factors. If the code is error proof then same output will always occur with exact same input.

See, that sounds ridiculous. Everyone keeps talking about code code code code. It's like everything I say except for the very first comment on randomness is not even being seen. Everyone is acting like I said the code produces randomness. All I ever pointed out is that IF there were errors in the code, then it could be related to the random occurences.

@schm0:

No, a game can do things regardless of what its code is, as I just mentioned above. There are always random factors there that have nothing to do with the code or player skill. So people keep telling me I'm wrong, and it's just silly. A code cannot function on its own. It has to go from input to output, and anything interferring with that can alter the outcome. That is fact.		2010-03-30 21:48:00

Author:
Unknown User

Wow, look at what have i startted?
Well, i got my confirmation to the original question somewhere else, and since this is derrailing to a different discussion, mods will you lock this thread?
There are already too many discussions already at LBPC, i don't want to help fire another one up.		2010-03-30 22:32:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

(I had a huge post in response, but decided to shorten it to this.)

The answer to the OP's original question is this:

You are most likely imagining things.		2010-03-30 22:49:00

Author:
schm0
Posts: 1239

ROFLMAO - Wow... well I guess it really is true...

There are ten kinds of people in this world - those that understand binary and those that don't.

This has been one of the most amusing reads in some time. Thanks everyone!

Whew!		2010-03-30 23:26:00

Author:
v0rtex
Posts: 1878

ROFLMAO - Wow... well I guess it really is true...

There are ten kinds of people in this world - those that understand binary and those that don't.


Pssst.. that's 10 kinds of people not ten. 		2010-03-30 23:44:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

Pssst.. that's 10 kinds of people not ten.
LOL - OMG... Nothing like totally blowing a good joke. I could say I did that to make a point, but yeah - I was just being obtuse. It will have to remain unedited to underline the effect of human error and stupidity (or maybe to teach a valuable lesson in humility - Lord knows it needs teaching).		2010-03-30 23:58:00

Author:
v0rtex
Posts: 1878

Well, that was fun while it lasted...

I will reserve my statements on the topic (however much I want to make a quick jab and then lock this), but I will just close it down respectfully. Hope you had your question answered in some regard, Silverleon.

Locked.

2010-03-31 00:02:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.