Sneaking makes you untargetable

[paulgiamatti]

Never noticed this bug prior to the last patch, which could just be because it's difficult to notice, but this could be the culprit:


Haynar: Fixed an issue which would cause sneak to get out of sync between the server and client.

[paulgiamatti]

Title correction: Sneak makes you untargetable to other players

[Pringles]

As in untargetable while sneak is active no matter if they are behind you and hidden or ahead and visible?

[paulgiamatti]

As in untargetable while sneak is active no matter if they are behind you and hidden or ahead and visible?

Yes, but even if for some weird reason sneak made you untargetable (yet still visible) only when you're behind another player, that shouldn't matter - sneak is purely a PvE mechanic that should only affect NPCs.

[Pringles]

Tested this with Gatmanno today. He was able to target me if i was in front of him while sneaking. However when I went behind him he wasn't able to /tar
I was still visible to him behind while snuck but /tar didn't work

Dunno if is bug or intended. Seems as if it's using the same targeting rule as invis when behind a PC.

[paulgiamatti]

Thanks for the legwork! Wasn't able to find any mention of this mechanic, so I'm fairly sure it's a bug and not a feature. This would also provide an unintended advantage for PvPers assuming it's also a bug on the red server.

[paulgiamatti]

Bump

[Doctor Jeff]

Hey bud, just noticed your bump...

No one has replied because there is no evidence in this thread to indicate, in either direction, whether this is a feature or a bug.

It is the responsibility of the public, not the staff, to present evidence which proves a change classic. It is then the responsibility of the staff, not the public, to determine whether or not it is a change that should be made.

Hope this helps.

[loramin]

No one has replied because there is no evidence in this thread to indicate, in either direction, whether this is a feature or a bug.

It is the responsibility of the public, not the staff, to present evidence which proves a change classic. It is then the responsibility of the staff, not the public, to determine whether or not it is a change that should be made.

When someone is saying "P99 has always done X, but it should do Y because live did Y," then yes, you need evidence to show that live did Y.

But if you're saying "P99 has always done X, then just the other day it started doing Y", you're reporting a (potential) bug in the P99 coding, not lobbying for a classic fix. There's no need for evidence because there's only two possibilities:

A) the devs did it on purpose, because they already have evidence and were deliberately making things more classic, or

B) the devs did not intend for this change to occur, and just weren't aware of it until now

Either way though the devs don't need further evidence: they have all the information they need, because they know whether the change was intentional or not.

[Doctor Jeff]

When someone is saying "P99 has always done X, but it should do Y because live did Y," then yes, you need evidence to show that live did Y.

But if you're saying "P99 has always done X, then just the other day it started doing Y", you're reporting a (potential) bug in the P99 coding, not lobbying for a classic fix. There's no need for evidence because there's only two possibilities:

A) the devs did it on purpose, because they already have evidence and were deliberately making things more classic, or

B) the devs did not intend for this change to occur, and just weren't aware of it until now

Either way though the devs don't need further evidence: they have all the information they need, because they know whether the change was intentional or not.

There is no evidence in this thread to indicate whether or not this skill behaved in this way at any point in the timeline. My personal recollection is that sneak still functions the same way it did when I first joined the server, but personal recollection is irrelevant.

[loramin]

There is no evidence in this thread to indicate whether or not this skill behaved in this way at any point in the timeline. My personal recollection is that sneak still functions the same way it did when I first joined the server, but personal recollection is irrelevant.

There are only three possibilities here, and their fate is 100% controlled by developer knowledge, not evidence:


A) a change was made on purpose = close the bug (the devs already know what they meant to do)
B) a change was made on accident = fix the bug (the devs already know what they didn't mean to do)
C) no change was made: close the bug (the devs already know how sneak should work and whether that matches Paul's report)


I mean really ... how many evidence submissions do you think the devs have gotten on sneak over the years? Tens? Maybe even hundreds? Remember all the changes they've made just to sneak pulling over the years? They're not wandering in the dark trying to figure out how sneak should work.

I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but you're discouraging a legitimate bug report with completely unnecessary requirements, when you're not a P99 developer yourself and have no authority to do so. If you discourage even one person (even just Paul himself) from submitting another bug report in the future, the whole server loses out because of you.

So yes, if I want to file a bug saying that flying kick should do 2x the damage of what it's currently doing, evidence will definitely decide decide its outcome. But if I file a bug saying that my flying kick has had half the refresh time it used to since the last patch, evidence has nothing to do with it, because the question isn't "how should flying kit work?", it's "is flying kick working the way it should?" But if you still disagree, please provide circumstance D) where evidence would change the outcome.

P.S. And one more thing: we're not talking about some random n00bie schmuck here complaining about the lack of mercenaries. This is Paul Giamatti, a four year server veteran, compiler/creator of UI enhancements (and a developer himself), and probably one of the ten most respected people on this forum.

[Doctor Jeff]

There are only three possibilities here, and their fate is 100% controlled by developer knowledge, not evidence:


A) a change was made on purpose = close the bug (the devs already know what they meant to do)
B) a change was made on accident = fix the bug (the devs already know what they didn't mean to do)
C) no change was made: close the bug (the devs already know how sneak should work and whether that matches Paul's report)


I mean really ... how many evidence submissions do you think the devs have gotten on sneak over the years? Tens? Maybe even hundreds? Remember all the changes they've made just to sneak pulling over the years? They're not wandering in the dark trying to figure out how sneak should work.

I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but you're discouraging a legitimate bug report with completely unnecessary requirements, when you're not a P99 developer yourself and have no authority to do so. If you discourage even one person (even just Paul himself) from submitting another bug report in the future, the whole server loses out because of you.

So yes, if I want to file a bug saying that flying kick should do 2x the damage of what it's currently doing, evidence will definitely decide decide its outcome. But if I file a bug saying that my flying kick has had half the refresh time it used to since the last patch, evidence has nothing to do with it, because the question isn't "how should flying kit work?", it's "is flying kick working the way it should?" But if you still disagree, please provide circumstance D) where evidence would change the outcome.

P.S. And one more thing: we're not talking about some random n00bie schmuck here complaining about the lack of mercenaries. This is Paul Giamatti, a four year server veteran, compiler/creator of UI enhancements (and a developer himself), and probably one of the ten most respected people on this forum.

It’s simple, mate, the guy is saying it shouldn’t work how it does now. Whether or not it was changed to work this way at any point in the past is irrelevant. If he says it should work in a different way, then there should be evidence of this.

You leave out the possibility that it is both a bug and has always been this way on p99.

Honestly, you are the one discouraging a potentially legitimate bug report by assuming that the devs always get it right on the first try and that no errors go unnoticed.

[loramin]

You leave out the possibility that it is both a bug and has always been this way on p99.

Of course it could have always been broken. If the devs screw up one day and delete one of the bankers in FV it's possible (though incredibly unlikely) that for nearly a decade we've actually been doing it wrong, because live could have actually had only one banker.

The question is, do you really want to discourage anyone from reporting the missing banker NPC unless they take the time to research and find absolute proof that there should be two bankers, because it's possible the devs have been wrong for nearly a decade? I'd argue that it makes no sense to make someone re-research all of the evidence the devs themselves already used when they first added the NPC, just to tell them "hey guys, this NPC that was here isn't anymore."

And again, if you go through the P99 release notes you will see that the devs have put a lot of effort into sneak mechanics (far more than they did into researching the FV bankers I'm sure). I have no idea if the number of sources they've used to research sneak is in the high tens or the low hundreds, but either way lack of evidence is not the problem. The problem is that the (well-researched/well-sourced with lots of evidence) sneak code seems to suddenly be behaving differently than it used to. Whether it's actually problem or not is something that will take a dev under five minutes to determine, but no amount of evidence will help them.

And the problem that 100% doesn't need to exist, but you're creating, is that people who are trying to help the project by submitting legitimate issues are being discouraged from doing so. I'm sure your intentions are good and you're trying to filter things for the staff, but I don't think you realize the damage you're doing with your "helping".

[Doctor Jeff]

some text

Why do you insist that there is no possibility of this being a bug?

This thread currently has no evidence of whether or not sneak is working as intended.

Paul suggests there that it might not be, so there SHOULD be an investigation.

It is the responsibility of the community to provide this evidence and your attempts to stifle research, and therefor progress, and your insistence that it should be ignored is baffling and counter-productive.

I'm not filtering anything. If you read what I said, I asked for evidence to complete the thread and point people in the direction of the truth. I am listing no requirements, I am asking for research to be done so that we can continue, as a community, in our quest to create a near-classic environment.

I don't think that you are trying to help, I think that you are trying to shutdown a potentially legitimate thread because you "remember it differently."

[aaezil]

You two should really get a room already

[paulgiamatti]

Hey bud, just noticed your bump...

No one has replied because there is no evidence in this thread to indicate, in either direction, whether this is a feature or a bug.

It is the responsibility of the public, not the staff, to present evidence which proves a change classic. It is then the responsibility of the staff, not the public, to determine whether or not it is a change that should be made.

Hope this helps.

Sorry, I should have clarified that when I said,

Wasn't able to find any mention of this mechanic, so I'm fairly sure it's a bug and not a feature.

I meant I indeed scoured many areas of the internet circa '99 - '02 without finding a single mention of this mechanic, which made me suspect that it's unique to P99. This is a logical conclusion to draw, because the corollary would be evidence of someone proclaiming during this era, in-game or otherwise, "Oh hey, aren't you guys glad they didn't make it so we can't target other players sneaking behind us?" The likelihood of someone declaring this in the positive is far greater than someone noticing the absence of such a mechanic, hence the lack of tangible evidence.

Admittedly, I do tend to make bug threads that deviate from the standard format of "player provides timestamped evidence x" because sometimes there just isn't any, and I've had some success (and, yes, some pushback) haphazardly throwing things on the table without much or any evidence simply to get the conversation started.

Further, if this indeed was a classic mechanic of EQ, it seems like at least one person would remember such a specific nuance and point it out - player testimony is also evidence developers can use when deliberating over whether a change should be made. It's just less credible evidence than, say, period-correct player testimony from Allakhazam, or more concrete evidence like period-correct screenshots or game footage, etc.

There is no evidence in this thread to indicate whether or not this skill behaved in this way at any point in the timeline. My personal recollection is that sneak still functions the same way it did when I first joined the server, but personal recollection is irrelevant.

So this is actually a performative contradiction because personal recollection is relevant to some degree. When I make a bug thread that is lacking in evidence, it's an invitation for players to find more evidence which can include chiming in with their own testimonies, and then the devs can figure out from there whether they think someone is legit or just fabricating nonsense. In your case, you've actually tainted your own testimony by responding in a fairly tone-deaf and condescending way and getting into a tussle with Loramin - now there may be personal motive behind your own testimony, though it still counts to a lesser degree.