Talk: Throwing knife spear

The weapon is a spear not a knife(though its made from one) thus it shouldn't be a bug its not effected by the cowboy perk. --LordVukodlak 06:47, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Umm

""If you throw one on a bear trap while crouching by it it will explode."" Is that right? At all? (Lvdoomien 21:11, June 8, 2011 (UTC))

What is and isn't a bug

First a little cut-paste:

Just because a perk description says it will affect a weapon doesn't mean it always will. If the GECK says it is supposed to be affected by the perk and it isn't working properly THEN it would be considered a bug. Great Mara (talk) 23:14, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, no, that is not the definition of a bug in any way shape or form. Plenty of things have been set in the GECK that are bugs. Remember the bug with the turrets in the Vault 11 Chamber of Sacrifice and the quest The House Always Wins? Destroying them would fail the quest for no reason. Why? The turrets were "set in the GECK" to be in the Lucky 38 faction. It was clearly a bug, it was even patched later, but under your definition it would not be a "bug" because what happened matched what was set in the GECK. Clearly that's wrong.

In short, I'm restoring the bug. I'm also going to skip quite a few steps and get some admins involved in this too. This is a bug. It has been confirmed as a bug. Your definition of what constitutes a bug is incorrect. Please accept these things and move on. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:10, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like to add as background which may factor into this discussion, namely who I am and what I do. I am not just some random dude with his own peculiar definition of bug. I have spent as much time fixing bugs in this game as I have playing it. Bugs are my specialty. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:19, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

What you just stated is completely absurd. If something is set in the GECK to work a certain way and it actually works that way then it isn't a bug, it would only be a bug if it was working contrary to the way it was programmed. Common sense 101. I'll be moving this to the Throwing Knife Spear talk page. And until someone with GECk checks the settings, I'm restoring the page to the way it was. Don't touch it again. Great Mara (talk) 00:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

First off, you're not an admin, as Skire just eloquently demonstrated by locking the article before you could revert me. Don't tell me not to touch an article. You don't have the right.

Second, Common Sense 101 is not Computer Science 101. QA teams don't confine themselves to only ensuring that the game engine does what you tell it to, they also ensure that what its told isn't crap.

However, I realize that won't really sway you much, so instead let me list a bunch of bugs which under your definition are not because the game is doing what it is told:

Craig Boone reholsters his weapon every 5 seconds even in combat, making it such that he does not actively participate in combat most of the time. This is caused by his companion quest script explicitly including a call to "CraigBooneREF.EVP" which triggers every five seconds no matter what due to the way the condition checks in the script are structured. The script is executing correctly as it is written, re-holstering is an expected effect of an EVP call, but this is still clearly a bug.
Several pre-dead NPCs such as Trash are marked as both dead and respawning, meaning that when you encounter them initially they will be dead, but if you return three days later they will be alive and wandering around. Again, the game is doing what it is told, but obviously dead, named NPCs are not meant to come back to life.
Grandma Sparkle is meant to have different dialog depending on whether the Lone Wanderer has good or bad karma, but because she's set to check her own karma she will always use the "good" dialog. Again, she is set in the GECK to check her own karma rather than the player's. This is a bug which exists BECAUSE of the GECK setting.
Completing How Little We Know without talking to Liza O'Malley first will make it impossible to complete For the Republic, Part 2 ever. This is caused by a dialog script "set in the GECK" that hides an objective that needs to be displayed so that FTRP2 can continue.

...and on and on and on. Really, I can name 20, 30 different examples that all follow this same formula of "it's a bug because of how it's set in the GECK". Your definition of a bug is inaccurate. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:39, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I am technically a Patroller however, so I will warn you against edit warring like you had been as much as I damn well fucking please along with reporting your behavior to admins as I see fit. I'll read the rest of your post after I get back from a food run since we're leaving now. Great Mara (talk) 00:50, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

And I am too. I've had rollback rights since before "Patroller" was even a user group. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:56, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check more closely, you neither have the tag on your profile nor are listed on the admin page. Furthermore if you were, you should know better. And since you seem to have more examples lined up, feel free to provide something besides programmer error. More along the lines of a weapon being listed in form lists and not working during actual gameplay preferably. Great Mara (talk) 01:15, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

First, this weapon not being on the Loose Cannon list is a programmer error. If you count the above as bugs, you count this as a bug. That's the point.

Second, check Special:ListUsers for rollback rights. I'm on there. Not my fault someone forgot to add me to the second list. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:23, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there, and I'll stay out of this from now on since an Admin is already involved, but the technical definition(s) for a software bug is stated as such:

a. A defect or difficulty, as in a system or design.
b. A defect in the code or routine of a program.

So that means, that if the programmers specifically did not add the throwing spears introduced in DM into the Loose Cannon perk table, then this is not a bug. Clarification: A misleading perk description is not necessarily a bug. It would only be a bug if the (DM) throwing spears were indeed added into the perk table, but still weren't affected as intended. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:37, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

The devs actually forgot to add any of the Dead Money weapons to any of the appropriate lists, not even perk lists but general classification lists, e.g. the Automatic Rifle is not added to the automatic weapons list, the ranged weapons list, the list which is literally named "Everything" that is meant to contain everything. Throwing knife spears not being on that list is just one part of the huge ball the devs dropped with Dead Money. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:41, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I would direct you to Talk:Throwing_knife_spear#What_is_and_isn.27t_a_bug for a full explanation of why your assumption is incorrect. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:43, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

"Forgot"? I would like to see your source for that. It might be obvious. But we are an encyclopedia first, and one doesn't make baseless assumptions on a factual wiki such as ours. I'm also confused as to how I was making assumptions. I gave you the literal dictionary definition of a software bug. Not a wikipedia definition. Not an urban dictionary definition. An actual dictionary.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:44, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Then I direct you to the first portion of the definition of bug, "a defect or difficulty, as in a system or design." These bugs I'm listing are cases of design defects: instances where it is not the implementation which is the source of the problem, but the design itself. Design defects constitute bugs. This is one of them.

Also if you look at the Dead Money script where these things were supposed to be set, it is as you suggest very obvious. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:00, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to me previous words: "So that means, that if the programmers specifically did not add the throwing spears introduced in DM into the Loose Cannon perk table, then this is not a bug. Clarification: A misleading perk description is not necessarily a bug. It would only be a bug if the (DM) throwing spears were indeed added into the perk table, but still weren't affected as intended."

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:10, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Except a misleading perk description is a bug. It's always a bug. Whether it's a bug on the part of the description or what the perk affects depends on the instance.

Look, Loose Cannon says it affects all thrown weapons, but the throwing knife spear - a thrown weapon - is not affected and is the only thrown weapon not affected. Logically, which one of these is the bug:

The description is inaccurate and should read (in part): "From frag grenades to throwing spears, you can throw weapons 30% faster at the cost of 25% less range, except for throwing knife spears"
The trait mistakenly does not cover throwing knife spears.

I think that illustrates my point pretty well. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:15, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

A misleading textual description is not a software bug. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Anyways, this isn't going anywhere. Until someone provides us with an image clearly showing from the G.E.C.K. that the (DM) throwing spears are indeed in the LC perk table, yet aren't behaving as intended, there is nothing at all pointing towards this being a bug of any kind.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

And that is why your assumption of what constitutes a bug is wrong. Again, which is more likely: throwing knife spears are the only thrown weapon in the entire game not affected by the trait, or this is a bug? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:24, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Prove it. I gave you the literal definition of a software bug. No assumptions there at all. You're just feeding us subjective information off of your own bias. (I say bias, because you specifically said you were right simply because you make mods on the Nexus site. Which doesn't actually prove anything.) So if you are the one in the right, then I'm sure you'll have no problem with providing sources towards your claims. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:27, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to get any "proof" on this one, because you can't prove a negative, specifically "prove that it's not by design." Also, you're avoiding the question. Which is more likely? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:30, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

You said you make mods. That means you have access to the G.E.C.K. So, if you're right, then yes, you can prove it by creating a simple screenshot of the (DM) throwing spear in the LC perk table.

That's not proof of a bug. That's proof of an arbitrary incorrect definition of a bug. Not to mention that DLC weapons don't appear in any of the Form Lists for perks since they're added via script. And no, it's not in the script either, because it's a programming error like I laid out above. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:36, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

And you do realize you're being a hypocrite, right? "Which is more likely?" - Subjective, and is making assumptions.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:33, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Still avoiding the question. Which is more likely: throwing knife spears are the only thrown weapon in the entire game not affected by the trait, or this is a bug? Answer it and this discussion will be over. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:36, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer that question. By answering that question, I'm saying I know better than the developers themselves. And as an Administrator on a factual encyclopedia of knowledge, I will do no such thing.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:42, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

If you want to stick to that somewhat unbelievable excuse, rather that just doing a bit of logical thinking so you can understand why I've come to the conclusion that is a bug, I won't stop you. I will say that I don't believe you for a second. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:46, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an objection to this being a bug? The perk states that all thrown weapons are affected; however, this weapon was never added to the list of weapons covered by the perk. We don't know why it wasn't added, but we do know that it's not there. 68.197.229.108 01:49, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Because this perk is a vanilla game perk. They've never re-written a vanilla game perk for DLC items. Ever. And if the developers specifically did not add the (DM) throwing spear into the LC perk table, then that means there is not a programming error. Simply that the developers did not want or bother to update the perk. If that's the case, then this is not a bug. Just an oversight that has nothing to do with the programming itself. Until proof is provided, then we have nothing stating that this is a bug.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... actually yes they have, or rather they used the function "AddFormToFormList" to update the list. That's why Loose Cannon covers the Tomahawk, Proton throwing axe and variants, and so on. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:58, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Did I say re-programmed? No. I said re-written. As in, the textual description. Which is what you're basing your whole argument around.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:03, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm basing my argument around a simple question: "which is more likely?" I may not have proof, but neither do you, and that's why I'm asking the question. Repeatedly. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:07, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... are you saying that the the only reason I think this is a bug is because they couldn't update the description of the trait to include the phrase "except the throwing knife spear"? Are you seriously arguing that? -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, a surprisingly insightful comment from an anon-IP. I'd like to emphasize one thing in that: "We don't know why". We do not know why this weapon is not on the list of weapons affected by Loose Cannon. Anyone who says they do who isn't named J.E. Sawyer, etc., is lying. We can only make assumptions based on logic and reason. So (to beat a dead horse) which assumption seems more logical: that throwing knife spears were intentionally not covered by the trait, making them the only thrown weapon not covered by the trait; or that their omission from the list is not intended and thus a bug? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:58, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

We don't edit based on assumptions. And maybe we should drop Sawyer a line to ask. Great Mara (talk) 01:59, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yes we do. We don't make wild assumptions, but this whole wiki has tons of assumptions and bits of logical reasoning in it. That may not be the way you want to edit, but that's been how this wiki operates since forever.

And your suggestion is completely impractical. Are we going to ask Sawyer to verify every single bug on this wiki? There are tons of bugs on this wiki which have been added with far less rationale than the one here, ones that have lasted through numerous edit wars and have been confirmed multiple times. In fact the Bug Verification Project was started specifically to stop these kinds of issues.

There are a great many bugs in this game, far too many for us to have the kind of proof you seem to want for every single one. In the absence of absolute proof we have to use logic and reason to figure out what the case is. The "which is more likely" question I keep asking, the one everyone seems bound and determined not to answer, is the kind of reasoning I'm talking about, the kind of reasoning that's been undertaken all over this wiki. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:07, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

The "which is more likely" question is making this sound more subjective than it actually is. Basically, we don't need dev confirmation on everything we list as bugs. Like I said above, we haven't asked specifically if the Roach King was intended to have a beard if she spawns as a female, but we can infer that this is an oversight and can be listed in the bugs section. 68.197.229.108 02:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why not ask him if the female Roach King was intended to have a beard and if Grandma Sparkle was intended to have good karma dialogue for all pcs? We don't have confirmation that these are unintended, but we have them listed in bugs anyway. 68.197.229.108 02:02, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that's it. I have tried again and again to remain objective. I've given you the literal definition of a software bug. I've refrained from giving my personal opinion over this, and I've asked multiple times now for you to provide some form of proof for your claims. And then, to rub salt into the wound, you tell everyone else that they're making assumptions, the ones that are debating you, at least, while you ask questions such as "which is more likely?", which is absolutely hypocritical.

So, here's the deal: As an Administrator, and off of consensus, I am laying down a decree stating that until proof is provided that this is indeed a bug, and not just something the developers intentionally left untouched, that this information is merely note-worthy, and not to be declared as a software bug.

However, since Skire was indeed the Admin that took over this debate first and locked the page down, I will respect his initial authority over this matter, and I will await his thoughts before proceeding further.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I will also remove the beard bug from the Roach King's page. We don't have any evidence that it's a bug. 68.197.229.108 02:17, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

The beard is an effect of the randomizer used to determine the gender of the RK. And since it's the randomizer that causes the beard, and not the gender in which females are not allowed to have beards (as seen using the character creation tool), that means that it is indeed a bug. Same as the Talon Company having multiple pigmentations due to their randomization. So if you remove that from the bug section, I will revert the change.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:21, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and you've completely misinterpreted that definition. The dicdef explicitly includes design defects - things that are a flaw in the design itself, not the implementation - in the definition of bug. You've also set a ridiculously high bar for proof, one that is simply unobtainable for most bugs. Go back and look at the bugs I laid out in my example: under your interpretation of what a bug is, those aren't bugs, yet it's quite obvious they are. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:20, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you. You say everyone else is wrong. But then refuse to provide sources as to how you're the one that is right. That doesn't sit right with me.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:22, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No, I've said two editors are wrong, and countless others who've worked on the article previously are correct. Remember, this isn't just a bug I'm reporting, this is a bug that's been on this article in this wiki for more than two years and has passed verification under Bug Verification Project. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof goes to the person removing longstanding information from the article, not the person trying to retain it. Where's your proof? -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:26, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

69.I25 outright stated that the weapon isn't on the form list, therefore the program is working correctly from the supplied parameters. Burden of proof as to whether or not this was intended is on you. Great Mara (talk) 02:28, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

And that's a completely incorrect definition of what constitutes a bug. Where's my proof? All those examples I laid out, and the 2+ years this bug has been on the wiki and remained as a bug, even after [fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Throwing_knife_spear?diff=1122605&oldid=1116134 being edited by an Admin]. That pretty well establishes consensus that your requirement for what constitutes proof is not a good requirement. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:30, September 25, 2013 (UTC)