Please someone give me a definition for 'bug' that:
i) doesn't include the turret shooting where there isn't a player
ii) does include people glitching out of the map
Either you have to say both are allowed and if a team glitches out of the map in VCT then there shouldn't be a replay
or
You have to say both turret and glitching out of the map should have a round replay
look it up on google
It says insect is only used in North America and who speaks their dogshit language
Apparently the turret shoots the last noticed location of a player and it shot heaven when the player was near A site door (turret's fault for sure). ANGE1 shot the turret from doors and this was noticed by XSET players (based on sound). Dephh looked heaven because of the turret and Ayrin tried to wallbang from hell that led them to lose that round.
Is it really a bug because KJ's turret going dumb happens very frequently even in ranked games. To fully rely on its contact is like gambling in a game.
It's very clearly not intended to do that though even if it does 'frequently'. It doesn't happen so frequently that we should just accept it, this is the first time this tourney that it's happened, 1 replay a tourney to fix an unfair round seems good to me.
Every single pro player will look at where the turret shoots, if you can't trust the information from it then what's the point of it being a turret, just have it make a ding sound when an enemy is in line of sight.
If people started going out of the area frequently would you say they shouldn't remake when a team does it since it's common?
I don't think you fully understood, it is designed to give false information. It spots and shoots at the last seen notice, if you jiggle or jump peek the turret it will shoot and go back to default creating a false info. If you stand in front of the turret it will shoot you. The call to peek based on the turret is for the player to make and it will be a gamble.
It does give you info, but info of last known location. If the enemy stands in front of the turret, it will give you LIVE info. The turret is supposed to shoot someone as it spots and will shoot a burst of 3 shots and if it spots someone for a split second it will shoot 1 shot and the rest 2 will go back to default facing position and the turret will switch to normal position.
This is where the "bug" in question comes. The moment the turret sees someone, here Omen (who was seen for a split second), it shot 1 shot and to adjust itself back to defualt/normal position it shot 1 shot towards heaven and then faced towards the generator and shot 1 shot. ANGE1 shot the turret and broke it. Pretty sure the shots were heard by the XSET players considering how sounds works in the game. The decision to keep looking at heaven because of 1 shot was dephh's to make and he gambled it and lost. Not to mention someone else who was on site with dephh was also watching heaven and trying to wallbang them (2 people looking at the same spot) while there was someone in A main (ofc smoked off).
FPX players took fight slowly despite knowing where the shots to break the turret came from, gambled wrong and lost.
The intended functionality isn't like that. If an enemy is detected even for a second, it bursts 3 bullets in that direction before offsetting to the default position.
But this sadly isn't how it is working since some time now. And as #8 said just because it is something people have seen doesn't mean it should be allowed as it goes against the expected functionality.
I'm probably dumb for being baited by the same troll again, but w.e.
Let's just use real examples: what is the difference between a turret shooting in a completely different direction, presumably at nobody vs. two people taking the ropes in Fracture and one of them falling off?
The answer is whether the effect (that is, falling off the map or the turret shooting at no one) matches any potentiality or possibility within the function of the object. In this case, the object is the rope and the turret. It's trivial to see why the rope would be classified as a "bug" that is acceptable for replay. This is because taking the rope has no intended function for you to fall off of it whatsoever. The turret is different because its essence is supposed to be unreliable to an extent. All a turrent's job is to fire when someone enter its range; it did that for Angel. Furthermore, there is nothing within the turret's design that guarantees it hits someone or shoots directly at them (you can always dodge its shots and hide). Coupled that with the turrent repositioning itself if it looks too far or too left, then all it means is that the turret will shoot (notice that I didn't write "shoot at") when someone enters its vicinity.
In summary, the difference is there is no room for interpretation why the physics of the game would allow players falling off the rope to their demise, cypher to put cams outside of the game's boundary, Jett to superdash if she jumps in a corner at a particular angle, or being able to see through Viper smokes. There is room for interpretation, however, whether a turret getting "triggered by" someone vs "shooting at" someone is the same thing. As an Immortal ex-KJ main (before Chamber), I've always assumed the essence of the turret is that it would necessarily be triggered when someone enters its domain, but not that it would necessarily shoot at someone. Otherwise, the turret almost never functions as it was "intended" in the higher levels, especially where there are a lot of jiggle peeks and Omen teleports.
Yea but at the same time, think about the use of the turret, not just as a notification, but as info gathering. Its as if a cypher trip glitched and showed the outline of an enemy in the wrong place, or if chamber trip triggered from someone who wasn't near the space at all. The issue at hand wasn't like it just did something unfortunate, but the turret gave false information that clearly affected the team's decision making. Whether this interaction is known or not doesn't change the fact that it (an unintended behavior) created an unfair situation for the team, at the biggest tourney of the year, in their last round before elimination.
None of the examples you've provided are quite appropriately analogous to what happened. You are providing examples outside the realm of possibilities, but what happened with the turret is quite repeatable and within the realm of possibilities given how the turret functions normally. A better analogy would be like if Neon dash bypassed the Chamber trip or something, where we're questioning the function of the utility and if there are circumstances where it cannot act as if it's supposed to.
Xerol provided examples outside the realm of possibilities as analogous because the turret behaving the way it did should fall into the same category - outside the realm of possibilities. This is backed up by the fact that Rito replayed that round, meaning they also agree that this is an unintended way for the turret to function.
If I sat some random person down who has never seen Valorant to tell me what happens when an enemy turns a corner that the turret is watching, they'd say something along the lines of "the turret turned toward the player and shot at him." Since that's something everyone would assume it does, people would get really frustrated and confused whenever it doesn't do that.
Riot does need to get better about fixing their bugs. We are now 2/2 for Champions events where Rito had to replay part of a game due to a bug/exploit (that they knew about). People will get super disgruntled if this happens again next year.
If I sat some random person down who has never seen Valorant to tell me what happens when an enemy turns a corner that the turret is watching
A random person wouldn't know the mechanics of a KJ turret while every player and coach would have known how the turret works, so your argument is null. Yes, it is true that the current design of the turret doesn't quite match the description that Riot had provided, but does that make it a bug? Additionally, is it a bug worthy of replay?
The problem is that this turret "bug" was a feature of the game ever since beta and it simply has been how the turret worked. You can't just assert it's outside the realm of possibilities when I explained how it is within it... to put it simply, the turret repositioned to its initial position when it deactivated mid-burst.
It would be as if ever since Chamber came out, his trips didn't show a range, but the trips deactivated once Chamber walked 50 paces away from it. Furthermore, it doesn't state in the description for the trip that Chamber must anchor his trip in order for it to remain active, such as the alarmbot, turret, etc. Chamber players simply knew about this feature through trial and error, and have worked out that they must stay within ~50 paces for it to remain active due to their game knowledge. Then, suddenly, after 2 years, Riot just claims that that's actually a bug in the middle of a major tournament. You think that's justified?
Even if we claim it is a "bug," it's something that Riot had neglected and had become a feature of the game. It would be ridiculous to, then, fault a team in a tournament for Riot's mistake, especially when everyone knew about the "bug." Notice how XSET members want NOTHING to do with Riot's decision? That's because anyone with decent game knowledge knew that this was within the possibility for how the turret functioned. Riot should have fixed this "bug" in the next patch update instead of faulting FPX for simply jiggle peeking a turret.
The turret is different because its essence is supposed to be unreliable to an extent.
The argument is around whether or not the turret shooting at nothing is part of the function/ it's essence.
I clearly disagree with your idea of what is the essence of the turret is, therefore how can we ever come to a conclusion on what is and isn't a bug using our beliefs on what is and isn't the essence of the object.
You claim there is no interpretation for the superdash but there is for the turret, the problem is if we do it based on what feels like something being in essence then rulings for what is and isn't intended becomes inconsistent and is too much up for interpretation.
Just because something is abused in the higher ranks doesn't make it 'intended', people in higher ranks abuse cypher cams yet we would still say these are not intended and shouldn't be allowed in VCT.
I don't think it is how the developer meant for the turret to play out, the only reason we would keep it otherwise is if it is an unintended mechanic that adds to the game somehow. I do not think, not shooting at where the enemy was seen adds any value to the game. If the turret is not suppose to tell you what direction the enemy is then why does the turret have a tracer in the first place
Just because something is abused in the higher ranks doesn't make it 'intended', people in higher ranks abuse cypher cams yet we would still say these are
This doesn't make sense. To abuse something is for you to methodically prep and repeat an action. Yet, in order for this "bug" to work would be if the KJ mistakenly puts the turret that oversees 2 chokepoint and one of the chokepoint is at the edge of the turret's range. Then, a player just jiggle peeks it. What I meant was in the higher ranks, it just happens naturally - the turret acts janky because there are features of the turret that make this happen sometimes so it isn't 100% reliable for information.
I do not think, not shooting at where the enemy was seen adds any value to the game.
But it only shoots at a player if that player is in the open. If the player has some movement where s/he finds coverage in between shots, then the turret won't shoot at the player necessarily but it will get triggered which is still information. And like I said, if the function of the turret is to reliably shoot at players - which is basically like a sova dart that also deals damage - then how it was coded seems to contradict that. The turret should never reposition and/or the turret should not be dodgeable mid burst as these functions contradict the reliablility of a turret to shoot at someone. It makes sense to think in lieu of the damage the turret potentially provides, it also won't be 100% reliable for information or that it shoots directly at someone. It's only in the lower ELOs where people walk out in the open and shoot at turrets while standing still that a turret functions as "intended" then.
I clearly disagree with your idea of what is the essence of the turret is, therefore how can we ever come to a conclusion on what is and isn't a bug using our beliefs on what is and isn't the essence of the object.
I mean, I'm not just saying, "Just trust me, bro." I'm dileneating my reasoning and providing evidence. In other words, I'm providing justifications for my perspective. There are 2 things you can do: you can just reject my view without any justification or try to challenge it by contradicting what I said using evidence. The former doesn't really help in providing a meaningful discussion, while the latter does.
Your right that abused isn't the correct term there but it doesn't matter if the bug is intended to be used or not, I doubt you would say a round shouldn't be replayed because someone went out of the map area only accidentally.
The turret can be dodgeable if you get out get out of line of sight, this does not go against what I claimed it's purpose was. Ideally the turret would shoot where the player wall last seen with it's final bullets (the corner or the wall) or would just stop shooting, the reason it doesn't I don't think is a sign the developer intended it to be unreliable, they did it because it's easier to code and doesn't happen enough to fix it, it doesn't have a animation going back to it's default position, instead it snaps back in an unpolished way further supporting this idea.
The problem is your justification isn't evidence, it is purely a value judgement, it quite literally is just trust me, bro. Your interpretation is that the function isn't to shoot directly at someone while I think the function of the turret is to give the direction of the enemy. Although we can try to appeal to each other about why our idea of the what a turrets function is, it's function isn't objective so we can't convince each other with evidence. It's like arguing about the function of music, I say it's function is to energise you while you claim it's function is too relax. Either way neither of us have a 'objective' foot to stand on.
Bonus meme: you still haven't given me a simple definition that includes one but not the other
it doesn't have a animation going back to it's default position, instead it snaps back in an unpolished way further
This is not true at all. If the turret looks too far left or right toward its adjacent sides, it will reset to default position once enemies go out of its sight. You can test it yourself... And this had to have been manually coded for the turret to function like this.
It's like arguing about the function of music, I say it's function is to energise you while you claim it's function is too relax.
This is not the argument at all... We are arguing the reliability of the turret and whether its function was meant to be reliable. In other words, all I'm arguing is that it's not necessary for the turret to directly shoot at the players - that all it matters in terms of information is the brief window when the turrets gets alerted/triggered it will look toward the enemy's direction, such as Cypher ult - while you are arguing it is necessary for the turret to shoot at the enemies. The burden of proof/evidence is stricter for you than it is for me. And it is not difficult to provide evidence for my case either: all I have to point out is how the turrets are, in fact, dodgeable; that if its intention were to reliably shoot directly at its enemies, then the developers could have made the turret shoot an undodgeable beam of light, yet they didn't. A more appropriate analogy would be as if you argued music must be at a certain volume range for it to be qualified as music, while I'm arguing that music can be qualified at any volume so long as sound is produced. It's not an either/or case then since my perspective also allows your view within mine.
you still haven't given me a simple definition that includes one but not the other
I've provided the definition? Let me restate it: For a bug worthy of replay, there should be no room for interpretation of the item's intended functionality, while in other cases, there are room for interpretation.
Discord