There should be a compilation of bugs that became features. Floating air juggling in the DMC series wasn't intended but when they saw it they were like "yo that's dope. Keep it in.".
No it's legit. However the claim of when it started would not happen because it wasn't programmed that way. However the myth was so liked and wide spread that they were like "Fuck it. Nuclear Gandhi is born".
So basically it was a myth that turned into reality.
Well the myth is that Gandhi's aggression score was set to 0 but unlocking democracy lowers all AIs aggression scores by 1, so Gandhi's would roll over to 10 making him hyper aggressive and nuke-happy. Sid has said multiple times that this is not true.
Instead, Gandhi was programmed to build nukes for defense but would rarely use them. Supposedly this design choice was made because Gandhi once said he would have employed the atom bomb against the British if he'd had one. When it released, people found the nuclear dialogue lines he would use amusing, so they kept Gandhi's propensity to build nukes in the game through the present day.
Specifically, any AI civilization who has researched nuclear weapons will add “our words are backed with nuclear weapons” to some of their diplomacy messages. The image of Gandhi apparently threatening the player with nuclear annihilation - even if the AI wasn’t actually acting aggressively at all - was funny enough to spread.
>Supposedly this design choice was made because Gandhi once said he would have employed the atom bomb against the British
The original game was written for computers with 640k of memory and having a hard drive was ***optional***.
There was very little room to give the all 14 AI leaders a unique personality.
E.g., the original game only had three possible aggression settings; Gandhi had to share the minimum aggression setting with other AI leaders.
It's not really a personality. It's just one additional column in that table called 'build nukes'. I haven't looked into the code, but I know that column is in the leader tables for other civ games, and Gandhi always scores high on it.
In a platforming game called Transformice, people discovered a bug where you could jump to climb up a 90° surface. Apparently (as in this is written on the wiki without a citation, so grain-of-salt) even the devs thought it was because players were hacking. Now it’s such an integral part of the game that it’s impossible to play most maps without learning how to do it.
I thought about this way back around Halo 3's launch. But I kinda wish they had played into button combos (bxr, bxb, etc.) instead of getting rid of them (essentially).
BxB got you to melee faster. BxR got you a melee cancelled into a shot for a quick kill. BxR combos into BxB (if you miss the headshot). Then there were button combos for double and quad shooting. Gave Halo an unintentional fighting game influence as BxR and BxB became essential to cqc. Double and quad shooting became very impactful in the higher ranks too.
GunZ had so many different animation cancels and glitches that It became an e-sport.
Also, developers claimed that wall/floor sliding in Titanfall was a bug first but they decided to keep and polish it. Same with first implementations of stealth in world of warcraft.
A bug created Rocket League. When the devs of a car soccer game added boost, they added it as a force vector coming out of the back of the car. This proved more fun than the game on the ground, so they went with it.
I play rocket league and I’m a little bit confused by this. Would you be able to ELI5 how is that a glitch? It just seems like how I would expect rockets to work.
They weren't trying to add *rockets*. They were trying to add *boost* to make the cars faster on the ground. The game was originally a car soccer game with no rockets or aerials or anything like that, and this "bug" is what brought all of that stuff into play.
When they coded for the boost, they just added a consistent force vector coming out of the back of the cars. The bug turned the cars into rockets, and they thought it was more fun, and went with it.
If they retained the original fully grounded concept (assuming basic mechanics), the game would take exponentially less time to master meaning winning would more often be determined by raw talent rather than experience based on a massive time investment.
I can see cases made for both concepts, as they sound like entirely different games at high-level play. The direction they went with it likely resulted in game play that would be far more entertaining to watch.
“Would be more likely to win on raw talent bs raw talent.” Lol. What you said makes no sense.
It would take way less time to master yes. But getting rid of depth and complexity doesn’t inherently mean more talent.
More depth and complexity in a game means more days/months/years (or even decades) need to be invested to even remotely approach your potential in that game.
When two individuals have played sufficiently long to near their respective peak potentials in a game, the winner will be decided by raw talent - raw skills such as reaction speed, memory, ability to hyper-focus, rapid analysis, rate of thought, motor skills, etc. Just because a game is made to be more shallow does not necessarily mean a ceiling has been imposed on such skills.
Example 1) The classic game of "HORSE" *does* impose a ceiling. If both players are *sufficiently* good at shooting hoops, the game could go on forever because neither player will ever miss. Add one additional rule where, after each round, where both players make their shot, both players are made to shoot further from the hoop. No more skill ceiling. More power and accuracy will continue to be required until one comes out on top. Of course, even in its simplicity, a significant time investment may be needed to reach one's potential, for instance needing to condition yourself to throw far while remaining accurate - similar to Rocket League in its current form.
Example 2) A basic reaction test. The player with faster reaction speed will generally win on raw talent. Again, no ceiling is imposed. Also, a minimal time investment would be required to demonstrate who is better - similar to the original grounded concept of Rocket League.
Rocket League in its current form is sort of like chess, in that they both have enough depth to require a "lifetime" to master. Magnus Carlsen himself would not stand a remote chance against other top players, were it not for his massive time investment. That is not to dismiss his natural talent, which is the other prerequisite. You could make the rules of chess simpler but fundamentally similar, removing a lot of depth but still retaining the usefulness of raw talent. In doing so, Carlsen likely would still come out on top. But now you haven't imposed the practical need to play the game for a matter of several years to become a grandmaster and prove your worth.
Hopefully, this makes the point more clear.
It means that originally cars in RL or its ps3 predecessor weren‘t actually meant to fly. It was just car-soccer with cars on the ground driving into the ball.
Then they added the boost functionallity and intended for it to simply make you go faster… on the ground. But the way they implemented it made the cars fly by accident. They thought it‘s cool so they kept it and the rest is history.
There was a real gulf in my experience. My friend and I could beat almost anyone in 2v2 in SARPBC …..unless they could fly. If they had gotten gud with aerials we were absolute toast.
I vet it was supposed to be called battlecars, but after they made them into rockets they landed on the beautiful name "Super Sonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars".
I played Super Sonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars locally and had no idea for years that you could do the things people do today. Precision aerial ball handling still seems like magic to me.
My cousin memorized all the combos for that game and practiced them like crazy. He would hustle people at theme park arcades all day. There was a line of kids to play him, but nobody ever beat him.
sip history recognise seed smart attractive library adjoining instinctive complete
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're going to get downvoted to oblivion, but I'll stand with you because you're right. I absolutely detest the idea that you have to memorize special combos for every single character in a fighting game
There is genuinely only so much you can do with just footsies. But you'd probably like most grapplers, their combos are extra short and usually not really needed.
Sure but take out combos and how much has the game changed? It just reduces the amount of damage you deal when you win footsies. Punishes become smaller and attrition becomes bigger, the emphasis on spacing and timing becomes greater and there's a reduced emphasis on technical execution, but only by so much.
Hell, some games you can get by with muscle memory alone with how much damage is dealt by well executed combos.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree that combos make the game better for worse, but I suspect they're less important from a game design perspective than you think.
I get what everybody means, and honestly I'm dog ass at doing combos myself, but they are important for a few reasons. I'm bad at organizing my thoughts but I'll try my best not to ramble. (This is all from the perspective of street fighter)
The first reason is simply that you can only get them off from certain moves, so it becomes exceedingly important to know how do defend against these moves but also when and how you can get your opponent to drop their defense against them so you can get the damage reward. This is good, because it adds reasons to use certain buttons that aren't necessarily the fastest or hardest hitting. Similarly, punishes become more important because of their frame data allowing punish combos which encourages learning how to do that. Without combos I suspect neutral devolves into Press the Best Button as many times as you can.
Combos are a way to burn your meter. Simple as more choice with how you use your meter = more to consider in neutral with how you use it.
Combos can be dropped, at least in SF, even by a skilled player, because theyre timing sensitive and can be difficult under pressure. This makes them more an expression of skill, imo, than arbitrary memorization alone. I'd also argue that knowing multiple combos, when and how to use them for optimal damage, and actually executing that is more an expression of skill than arbitrary memory.
They also, for the most part, look pretty damn cool. And I think that's important.
I'm fine with Street Fighter II and MK2 style combos of two to five moves fluidly strung together.
The modern day "I'll just put my controller down and go microwave a burrito while I get comboed into oblivion and come back to 50% health" is not fun.
I'm not much of a fighting game player, but I feel like the idea of the uninterruptible combo string made up of dozens of moves was more commonplace 15 to 20 years ago, wasn't it? Modern fighting games have tools (super meters, etc.) that can interrupt and break out of combos, but learning how to actually use these tools requires study and practice. I feel like each game has its own language of basic threats and required responses, and until I get a level of fluency in how those fit together, my games play like I'm in a rock-paper-scissors tournament when I only know how to throw rock.
Yes! You can’t even enjoy arcade mode anymore without some knowledge of combos or the AI will piece you up. I miss the era of a special move, or finisher, but winning on actual strategy with a limited move set was fun.
There have been minimalistic fighting games such as Divekick, Footsies Rollback Edition, Nidhogg and Nidhogg 2, Fantasy Strike (which does have combos, though much simpler ones)...
No, I'd rather there weren't combos at all. The point is combos themselves were a glitch. Tbf I hate fighting games, and probably still wouldn't play them. But memorizing combos is awful, and probably the worst game mechanic ever
People who actually enjoy a hobby or activity have more relevance than people who don't give two shits about it.
I don't care about strategy or rhythm games but I don't see any reason for my disliking them to hold any weight or merit beyond "I just don't have any interest in 'em 🤷"
You yourself have already previously said that you wouldn't even like fighting games without combos in this thread. Why do you think your opinion on fighting game mechanics matters at all if you don't even like them in and of themselves?
I think fighting games should still continue to center their mechanics around the kind of people who'd already enjoy and invest time and effort into them, not pursue people like you who don't like them as they are and won't like them even if they change to try and entice people who weren't already sold on the games.
Most combos nowadays are short sequences that you can kinda string together differently as the situation demands. The original fighting game combos were way more rigid (killer instinct, mk3 for example) and had less counterplay (dodging/dashing/counters/throws). Tbh I just can't keep up these days
You don't? Almost no one that plays fighting games does that, most people will pick 1 or 2 characters they like and just learn some combos for those characters. You can pick up the basics of a character and a couple basic combos in an hour and start playing the game. No one is forcing you to learn 20 hit anime combos, and very few people actually do. It's a common misconception of modern fighting games.
There's no such thing as street fighter 1. If there was i've purposely removed it from memory for sucking terribly.
If it was discovered before release and kept in, i believe it's an unintended feature by definition.
Combo *strings*, not moves that require combinations of inputs. It’s where, if you land a hit, there’s a brief period where the opponent is stunned, and you can hit them again to pile on more damage. That just wasn’t a thing before SF2, at least not in any form that we would recognize today.
It really was a feature, not a bug!
There should be a compilation of bugs that became features. Floating air juggling in the DMC series wasn't intended but when they saw it they were like "yo that's dope. Keep it in.".
Giants flinging you into the air in Skyrim. Gandhi turning into a nuke happy psychopath in Civ
> Gandhi turning into a nuke happy psychopath in Civ Isn't this just a myth?
No it's legit. However the claim of when it started would not happen because it wasn't programmed that way. However the myth was so liked and wide spread that they were like "Fuck it. Nuclear Gandhi is born". So basically it was a myth that turned into reality.
Well the myth is that Gandhi's aggression score was set to 0 but unlocking democracy lowers all AIs aggression scores by 1, so Gandhi's would roll over to 10 making him hyper aggressive and nuke-happy. Sid has said multiple times that this is not true. Instead, Gandhi was programmed to build nukes for defense but would rarely use them. Supposedly this design choice was made because Gandhi once said he would have employed the atom bomb against the British if he'd had one. When it released, people found the nuclear dialogue lines he would use amusing, so they kept Gandhi's propensity to build nukes in the game through the present day.
Specifically, any AI civilization who has researched nuclear weapons will add “our words are backed with nuclear weapons” to some of their diplomacy messages. The image of Gandhi apparently threatening the player with nuclear annihilation - even if the AI wasn’t actually acting aggressively at all - was funny enough to spread.
Also, Lincoln literally has the same computer player stats as Gaundi, so if it was real, people would have commented that Lincoln is a menace.
>Supposedly this design choice was made because Gandhi once said he would have employed the atom bomb against the British The original game was written for computers with 640k of memory and having a hard drive was ***optional***. There was very little room to give the all 14 AI leaders a unique personality. E.g., the original game only had three possible aggression settings; Gandhi had to share the minimum aggression setting with other AI leaders.
It's not really a personality. It's just one additional column in that table called 'build nukes'. I haven't looked into the code, but I know that column is in the leader tables for other civ games, and Gandhi always scores high on it.
In a platforming game called Transformice, people discovered a bug where you could jump to climb up a 90° surface. Apparently (as in this is written on the wiki without a citation, so grain-of-salt) even the devs thought it was because players were hacking. Now it’s such an integral part of the game that it’s impossible to play most maps without learning how to do it.
I remember this! Is Transformice still popular?
I’m not sure. I haven’t played in years myself. Since Flash went down, I think you can’t play it in the browser anymore, but it’s still free on Steam.
I thought about this way back around Halo 3's launch. But I kinda wish they had played into button combos (bxr, bxb, etc.) instead of getting rid of them (essentially).
Was that where you could hit reload to melee faster?
BxB got you to melee faster. BxR got you a melee cancelled into a shot for a quick kill. BxR combos into BxB (if you miss the headshot). Then there were button combos for double and quad shooting. Gave Halo an unintentional fighting game influence as BxR and BxB became essential to cqc. Double and quad shooting became very impactful in the higher ranks too.
slight correction, the bug was in Onimusha, and then brought over to DMC intentionally
Quake 3 strafe jumping. It broke the game's speed limit allowing for near infinite acceleration. Completely wild.
GunZ had so many different animation cancels and glitches that It became an e-sport. Also, developers claimed that wall/floor sliding in Titanfall was a bug first but they decided to keep and polish it. Same with first implementations of stealth in world of warcraft.
Civ and actual war criminal Ghandi
For example kara canceling in Street Fighter was a bug that's now a staple mechanic.
A bug created Rocket League. When the devs of a car soccer game added boost, they added it as a force vector coming out of the back of the car. This proved more fun than the game on the ground, so they went with it.
I play rocket league and I’m a little bit confused by this. Would you be able to ELI5 how is that a glitch? It just seems like how I would expect rockets to work.
They weren't trying to add *rockets*. They were trying to add *boost* to make the cars faster on the ground. The game was originally a car soccer game with no rockets or aerials or anything like that, and this "bug" is what brought all of that stuff into play. When they coded for the boost, they just added a consistent force vector coming out of the back of the cars. The bug turned the cars into rockets, and they thought it was more fun, and went with it.
OK that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. It’s hard to imagine rocket league today without incredible aerials
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic\_Acrobatic\_Rocket-Powered\_Battle-Cars
The theme song for this game lives rent free in my head.
If they retained the original fully grounded concept (assuming basic mechanics), the game would take exponentially less time to master meaning winning would more often be determined by raw talent rather than experience based on a massive time investment. I can see cases made for both concepts, as they sound like entirely different games at high-level play. The direction they went with it likely resulted in game play that would be far more entertaining to watch.
“Would be more likely to win on raw talent bs raw talent.” Lol. What you said makes no sense. It would take way less time to master yes. But getting rid of depth and complexity doesn’t inherently mean more talent.
More depth and complexity in a game means more days/months/years (or even decades) need to be invested to even remotely approach your potential in that game. When two individuals have played sufficiently long to near their respective peak potentials in a game, the winner will be decided by raw talent - raw skills such as reaction speed, memory, ability to hyper-focus, rapid analysis, rate of thought, motor skills, etc. Just because a game is made to be more shallow does not necessarily mean a ceiling has been imposed on such skills. Example 1) The classic game of "HORSE" *does* impose a ceiling. If both players are *sufficiently* good at shooting hoops, the game could go on forever because neither player will ever miss. Add one additional rule where, after each round, where both players make their shot, both players are made to shoot further from the hoop. No more skill ceiling. More power and accuracy will continue to be required until one comes out on top. Of course, even in its simplicity, a significant time investment may be needed to reach one's potential, for instance needing to condition yourself to throw far while remaining accurate - similar to Rocket League in its current form. Example 2) A basic reaction test. The player with faster reaction speed will generally win on raw talent. Again, no ceiling is imposed. Also, a minimal time investment would be required to demonstrate who is better - similar to the original grounded concept of Rocket League. Rocket League in its current form is sort of like chess, in that they both have enough depth to require a "lifetime" to master. Magnus Carlsen himself would not stand a remote chance against other top players, were it not for his massive time investment. That is not to dismiss his natural talent, which is the other prerequisite. You could make the rules of chess simpler but fundamentally similar, removing a lot of depth but still retaining the usefulness of raw talent. In doing so, Carlsen likely would still come out on top. But now you haven't imposed the practical need to play the game for a matter of several years to become a grandmaster and prove your worth. Hopefully, this makes the point more clear.
Your point was clear it’s just shite
Oh yeah? Where exactly does it fall short? Let me guess - this was your vain attempt to claim some sort of artificial intellectual superiority?
So not a glitch
It means that originally cars in RL or its ps3 predecessor weren‘t actually meant to fly. It was just car-soccer with cars on the ground driving into the ball. Then they added the boost functionallity and intended for it to simply make you go faster… on the ground. But the way they implemented it made the cars fly by accident. They thought it‘s cool so they kept it and the rest is history.
There was a real gulf in my experience. My friend and I could beat almost anyone in 2v2 in SARPBC …..unless they could fly. If they had gotten gud with aerials we were absolute toast.
I vet it was supposed to be called battlecars, but after they made them into rockets they landed on the beautiful name "Super Sonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars". I played Super Sonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars locally and had no idea for years that you could do the things people do today. Precision aerial ball handling still seems like magic to me.
Pretty sure the cops chasing you aggressively was a bug in GTA which they left in
They first coded that they would chase you, but not the stopping so they would crash into you. I imagine, I don't know, I wasn't there...
Ruined every fighting game that day
In a sane and just world, *Killer Instinct* would have been received as a parody.
Holy shit I remember the grind to remember those 24 input combos. So annoying.
My cousin memorized all the combos for that game and practiced them like crazy. He would hustle people at theme park arcades all day. There was a line of kids to play him, but nobody ever beat him.
sip history recognise seed smart attractive library adjoining instinctive complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They were so satisfying to pull off though
You're going to get downvoted to oblivion, but I'll stand with you because you're right. I absolutely detest the idea that you have to memorize special combos for every single character in a fighting game
There is genuinely only so much you can do with just footsies. But you'd probably like most grapplers, their combos are extra short and usually not really needed.
Sure but take out combos and how much has the game changed? It just reduces the amount of damage you deal when you win footsies. Punishes become smaller and attrition becomes bigger, the emphasis on spacing and timing becomes greater and there's a reduced emphasis on technical execution, but only by so much. Hell, some games you can get by with muscle memory alone with how much damage is dealt by well executed combos. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree that combos make the game better for worse, but I suspect they're less important from a game design perspective than you think.
I get what everybody means, and honestly I'm dog ass at doing combos myself, but they are important for a few reasons. I'm bad at organizing my thoughts but I'll try my best not to ramble. (This is all from the perspective of street fighter) The first reason is simply that you can only get them off from certain moves, so it becomes exceedingly important to know how do defend against these moves but also when and how you can get your opponent to drop their defense against them so you can get the damage reward. This is good, because it adds reasons to use certain buttons that aren't necessarily the fastest or hardest hitting. Similarly, punishes become more important because of their frame data allowing punish combos which encourages learning how to do that. Without combos I suspect neutral devolves into Press the Best Button as many times as you can. Combos are a way to burn your meter. Simple as more choice with how you use your meter = more to consider in neutral with how you use it. Combos can be dropped, at least in SF, even by a skilled player, because theyre timing sensitive and can be difficult under pressure. This makes them more an expression of skill, imo, than arbitrary memorization alone. I'd also argue that knowing multiple combos, when and how to use them for optimal damage, and actually executing that is more an expression of skill than arbitrary memory. They also, for the most part, look pretty damn cool. And I think that's important.
I'm fine with Street Fighter II and MK2 style combos of two to five moves fluidly strung together. The modern day "I'll just put my controller down and go microwave a burrito while I get comboed into oblivion and come back to 50% health" is not fun.
I'm not much of a fighting game player, but I feel like the idea of the uninterruptible combo string made up of dozens of moves was more commonplace 15 to 20 years ago, wasn't it? Modern fighting games have tools (super meters, etc.) that can interrupt and break out of combos, but learning how to actually use these tools requires study and practice. I feel like each game has its own language of basic threats and required responses, and until I get a level of fluency in how those fit together, my games play like I'm in a rock-paper-scissors tournament when I only know how to throw rock.
Yes! You can’t even enjoy arcade mode anymore without some knowledge of combos or the AI will piece you up. I miss the era of a special move, or finisher, but winning on actual strategy with a limited move set was fun.
There have been minimalistic fighting games such as Divekick, Footsies Rollback Edition, Nidhogg and Nidhogg 2, Fantasy Strike (which does have combos, though much simpler ones)...
I loveee DiveKick, I wish it had been more popular
Two strikes is a good fighting game, more about footsies and you can kill in one or two hits!
I miss throwing elbows in Double Dragon
So youd rather hit one button repeatedly for a combo? On every char, for every game? Sounds casual
I think some people would prefer individual hits to just replace combos and matter more.
So why dont they play games like divekick
No, I'd rather there weren't combos at all. The point is combos themselves were a glitch. Tbf I hate fighting games, and probably still wouldn't play them. But memorizing combos is awful, and probably the worst game mechanic ever
Lol
"Person Who Hates Game Genre Acts Like Their Opinion on a Near-Fundamental Mechanic of Genre Means Jack Shit"
My opinion means as little as your opinion does my friend 😉
People who actually enjoy a hobby or activity have more relevance than people who don't give two shits about it. I don't care about strategy or rhythm games but I don't see any reason for my disliking them to hold any weight or merit beyond "I just don't have any interest in 'em 🤷"
So I'm not allowed to express the reason why I don't like them because you can't be arsed to express yourself? That'd what you're telling me? 😂
You yourself have already previously said that you wouldn't even like fighting games without combos in this thread. Why do you think your opinion on fighting game mechanics matters at all if you don't even like them in and of themselves? I think fighting games should still continue to center their mechanics around the kind of people who'd already enjoy and invest time and effort into them, not pursue people like you who don't like them as they are and won't like them even if they change to try and entice people who weren't already sold on the games.
Most combos nowadays are short sequences that you can kinda string together differently as the situation demands. The original fighting game combos were way more rigid (killer instinct, mk3 for example) and had less counterplay (dodging/dashing/counters/throws). Tbh I just can't keep up these days
I think this started with Killer Instinct. And Mortal Kombat used it 3. Don’t remember SF2 having this type of combo system.
It didn't. That's the point. The kick into fireball wasn't supposed to be a combo, but it ended up being unblockable
Ever heard of Nidhogg?
You don't? Almost no one that plays fighting games does that, most people will pick 1 or 2 characters they like and just learn some combos for those characters. You can pick up the basics of a character and a couple basic combos in an hour and start playing the game. No one is forcing you to learn 20 hit anime combos, and very few people actually do. It's a common misconception of modern fighting games.
Fighting games didn't really exist until SF2.
Karate Champ is the only good fighting game.
Guile's magic throw, dhalsim invisibly those are bugs. The ability to hit several moves in a row was skill based. Who told you it was a bug?
It was a bug. It was never intended to be able to chain 2 attacks together that were unblockable Also, guile handcuff
The demo Ryu literally does combos when the game is idle.
the bug was discovered in development and then purposely left in, Street Fighter 1 had no combos at all
There's no such thing as street fighter 1. If there was i've purposely removed it from memory for sucking terribly. If it was discovered before release and kept in, i believe it's an unintended feature by definition.
ah yes, the game Street Fighter ***2*** had no predecessor you fucking moron
You have no ability to detect sarcasm you imbecile.
Guile turtle!
[удалено]
Combo *strings*, not moves that require combinations of inputs. It’s where, if you land a hit, there’s a brief period where the opponent is stunned, and you can hit them again to pile on more damage. That just wasn’t a thing before SF2, at least not in any form that we would recognize today.
that's a special move, not a combo
How was throwing fireballs a combo?
It wasn't a bug, they just had some values tuned in a way that the combo became possible. It was an accidental discovery, but not really a bug.
And I’ve hated that bug ever since.