Give us a {CENSORED} configurable disconnect timer

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

And now for Chris' response....

"

Chris wrote:

It's set to six seconds, because any longer will cause people to be kicked by regular internet lag spikes too much. We may make this user-configurable in the future.

Source

You always seem to chime in without have any understanding of the situation at hand.

@Char1983 has ISP\connection issues, hes made it well known that he could probably change isps, but says it will be equally as bad. He won't work with support to do a traceroute to see if there is something different, he hasn't mentioned if the new Brazil gateway has improved this at all. He literally refuses to do anyhing constructive to fix his issue.

Now onto what you linked.

That response was from 13 months ago, now lets do a quick assessment of whats changed.

They added lockstep mode, which unlike desync is very much noticeable when you disconnect or have bad packets. They've made improvements to predictive mode as well in the process.


If the bones of having this system customizable for the players is already there I don't have an issue with it. I just don't want to see dev time wasted on things that ultimately can be solved by players improving their connection issues themselves.

"

Chris wrote:

It's set to six seconds, because any longer will cause people to be kicked by regular internet lag spikes too much. We may make this user-configurable in the future.

"

Vhlad wrote:

I suspect a configurable disconnect timer could be abused.

How?

"

Vhlad wrote:

Best solution is for GGG to sell an offline version of PoE, preferably mod-capable.

Other solutions include:
Reducing or capping the death penalty scaling at high levels.
Reducing the level difference XP penalty so the death penalty doesn't remove multiple hours of XP progression at high level.
Adding accessible non-scarce high level content.
Adding a custom league with a more casual death penalty than standard.

All those are good suggestions (+1).

The map scarcity adds to the problem a lot, cause I have to play low-level shit where the only way I would ever die is by desync, and where I do not get XP in any reasonable amount of time.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

And now for Chris' response....

"

Chris wrote:

It's set to six seconds, because any longer will cause people to be kicked by regular internet lag spikes too much. We may make this user-configurable in the future.

Source

Thanks. So my feedback to GGG is: PLEASE add this. This would be sooo helpful.

"

Fhark wrote:

One thing that helped me in nz was using wtfast i would dc everymap with fast movement speed and lockstep didnt help one bit.

Thanks. Might look into that.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Moddable offline client won't ever happen as long as GGG is still actively developing the game, its counter-intuitive to what they are doing in terms of business and design, the absolute greatest wish of mine and almost anyone that likes poe is an offline modable version, but that doens't make you any money.

Protip: You can charge money for offline clients. Companies have made a lot of money that way.

"

goetzjam wrote:

@Char1983 has ISP\connection issues, hes made it well known that he could probably change isps, but says it will be equally as bad. He won't work with support to do a traceroute to see if there is something different, he hasn't mentioned if the new Brazil gateway has improved this at all. He literally refuses to do anyhing constructive to fix his issue.

To give you a rough idea, it took more than 8 months in this country to get a visa, and I had to wait pretty much exactly 10 hours in waiting rooms to do so. Sometimes I had to wait for more than three hours to get a stamp.

Also, after more than one year, to this day, I have no working online banking. At some point you grow tired of calling people and walking to the bank and being told that everything works, and you have to manually demonstrate to them that it doesn't, upon which you are told that they don't know why it doesn't work, it should work, and they cannot fix it for you.

Good fucking look arguing with an ISP, in a language you don't speak.

Could I get help from the locals who do speak the language? I told them the problem, they literally told me "forget it, internet sucks here, get used to it".

I have also tried four different internet connections with different ISPs, the problem is the same everywhere. It goes bad sometimes, and sometimes it works. It is probably correlated with how much people use the internet.

Also, I am using the Brazil server, which has reduced my minimum latency, but the spikes remain.

I have also posted a traceroute thingy here, which looked fine to everyone. That was to the Texas server, though.

So, what about this was not constructive?



Also, some other comments:

1) Not only you and people who think like you have supported this game. I have supported this game with my money. Please do not try to tell me what I want this game to be.

2) In every league, the highest level characters after a few days are hardcore characters. I do not think that is because of the death penalty.

"

Not having any death penalty vastly changes the experiences so much more from hc\sc, theres already so much negativity among the community because of it.

First, arguing for changes made to reduce the harshness of the death penalty at high level is not the same as asking for no death penalty.

Second, people who have just leveled or who choose not to level have effectively opted out of the death penalty - there's no more added penalty for them (as well as players who have reached 100) - we see this with iir/iiq farming and speed running in standard, we see this when people try new maps or bosses for the first time right after leveling. In fact, the majority of players just give up on leveling after reaching a target level and play the game as if no added death penalty existed. If you believe the concept of no penalty or a reduced high level penalty has such a negative impact on the game, you should devote some effort into advocating for a way to actually punish everyone for death all the time.

"

In terms of business standpoint no way, people that supported this game don't want it to be 2 completely separate experiences.

I've supported this game, and I play standard because I definitely want a different experience than hardcore. And I played the 1 month flashback, again, because I wanted a new gameplay experience. GGG should be leveraging the league system precisely to create different experiences, to attract and satisfy players who like different things rather than focus narrowly on their ideal of hardcoreness.

"

It will increase the amount of players that get to level 100 by MAGNITUDES. Probably 30% of the playerbase or more play in standard ALL THE TIME REGARDLESS OF LEAGUES.

If instead of having 500 players reach level 100 after 3 years, we had 5000 or 50000, damn I would consider that a very positive indication of game success. GGG should want players to feel motivated to participate in long-term leveling. The current numbers are embarrassing, really abysmal, tragic. 500 (or 600, 700, etc)? It's not a figure to place on a pedestal and be proud of. GGG can't even claim it's an example of hardcoreness when the motivated few are able to do it in 2 weeks.

In fact, given the cycling temp league and race season format, the game would be better off if those players sticking to standard were more readily able to satisfy their progression goals (using the builds they find entertaining). They'd have more fun with the game if they felt they could take time off standard to enjoy events/ temp leagues.

"

From a design standpoint softcore characters will always get higher and higher levels, but its the same game so how does GGG balance for people on average in endgame getting level 85 in hc, when the new standard for softcore would be 95? You simply cannot.

Silly. The huge difference in gear quality and skill gem levels has a much greater impact than 10 skill points and 120 life. How does GGG balance to make the game challenging for someone with 16000+ ES and 4k+ ES/sec regen vs. someone with 6000 life and 400/sec life regen? How does GGG balance to make the game challenging for a level 28 poison arrow that does over 100% more base damage than a level 20 poison arrow? There are countless examples were gem and gear differences absolutely marginalize the naked gains from 85 to 95.
Also the whole criticism is irrelevant, because softcore characters already currently reach higher levels on avg than hardcore - the balance standard level differential, if it actually mattered, already exists.

"

Moddable offline client won't ever happen as long as GGG is still actively developing the game, its counter-intuitive to what they are doing in terms of business and design, the absolute greatest wish of mine and almost anyone that likes poe is an offline modable version, but that doens't make you any money.

They can make money via an offline version - same way as other games make money. Sell an offline client ($30, $40, $50, whatever target price they determine is optimal) and require online authentication to prevent piracy. They can do that and still offer the FTP online only client. [or maybe only offer the FTP online client, to prevent confusion in steam store pages, and sell the offline client via GGG points/in-game/forum shop].

Lets assume you get the adjustable timer and set it at 2 seconds and decide that you are going to fight a boss, as soon as you engage you get a lag spike and DC...ohh look you died because you were not connected to miss that last hit, seriously all it would accomplish is increasing your DC's exponentially if you have as bad a connection as it seems you have.

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

Lets assume you get the adjustable timer and set it at 2 seconds and decide that you are going to fight a boss, as soon as you engage you get a lag spike and DC...ohh look you died because you were not connected to miss that last hit, seriously all it would accomplish is increasing your DC's exponentially if you have as bad a connection as it seems you have.

Lets assume he gets the adjustable timer and he can test for himself what delay fits best (DC vs delay), as Chris said in his statement the system is already there but not as an option in the user interface, what is the problem then?

"

Char1983 wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

I suspect a configurable disconnect timer could be abused.

How?

Not sure exactly. I'm worried about using a super short timer and deliberate disconnects (perhaps coupled with causing very high latency/spikes via ground effect spam) to force rollbacks to exploit crafting or dupe. Or a super long timer to do odd things like hold instances open or create server issues. Nothing concrete, just general paranoia.

"

goetzjam wrote:

It will increase the amount of players that get to level 100 by MAGNITUDES. Probably 30% of the playerbase or more play in standard ALL THE TIME REGARDLESS OF LEAGUES.

From a design standpoint softcore characters will always get higher and higher levels, but its the same game so how does GGG balance for people on average in endgame getting level 85 in hc, when the new standard for softcore would be 95? You simply cannot.

Are the top end maps currently balanced around characters level 90+? I didn't think GGG really had content ready for those levels.

IMO - there are a lot of standard players who would play a lot more if they had a better chance of getting to 100, and standard players that would play more after they got to 100, since they could then focus on alts or item finding and not feel as if they were still locked into the "chore" of getting a character to 100.

BTW, I am not advocating for the death penalty to go away or be lessened (such as the 8% GGG proposed when it was originally lowered from 15%).

I like the large bag of tart green apples.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Second, people who have just leveled or who choose not to level have effectively opted out of the death penalty - there's no more added penalty for them (as well as players who have reached 100) - we see this with iir/iiq farming and speed running in standard, we see this when people try new maps or bosses for the first time right after leveling. In fact, the majority of players just give up on leveling after reaching a target level and play the game as if no added death penalty existed.

Good points.

I know GGG can track some of the player's behaviors related to some of the results that occur in game. Hopefully, it wouldn't be onerous for them to look at the stats for what you mention.

1) for players who have just leveled - do they play more maps, and try to advance further in the game than players who are halfway or more up the xp bar?

2)Is there some statistical bunching at a certain point where a large percentage of players really don't seem to level anymore, even though they may still play that character quite a bit?

3)Do players that hit level 100* play less than players who are 90+ and still progressing?


*I realize the number of players hitting 100 is a small group, but since GGG has the total data set and isn't sampling, it could still be representative, statistically speaking.

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

Lets assume you get the adjustable timer and set it at 2 seconds and decide that you are going to fight a boss, as soon as you engage you get a lag spike and DC...ohh look you died because you were not connected to miss that last hit, seriously all it would accomplish is increasing your DC's exponentially if you have as bad a connection as it seems you have.

Let's not assume, let's just state facts. I just had an interesting fight with a double Merveil in Necropolis. I had several lag spikes of about 2-3 seconds, and did not die. Both times I logged afterwards because I spammed all my potions to not die and did not want to risk dying due to having no potions left.

Both times I would not have had a problem if the game had disconnected me. Also both times I would have died on a lag spike longer than 5 seconds.

Let us also realize the fact that I have a lot more data on lags and disconnects than you have. Out of the last 10 lag-deaths, zero have happened on bosses, and 10 have happened on trash mobs. In probably zero of those cases would I have died if I had been disconnected after 2 seconds. I would like to be disconnected after two seconds IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, because the risk of dying becomes too large after that time. Yes, it would increase the number of disconnects I have, by probably about 50%. It would also decrease the number of lag-induced deaths by probably 80% or more.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Not sure exactly. I'm worried about using a super short timer and deliberate disconnects (perhaps coupled with causing very high latency/spikes via ground effect spam) to force rollbacks to exploit crafting or dupe. Or a super long timer to do odd things like hold instances open or create server issues. Nothing concrete, just general paranoia.

Paranoia is healthy, especially on the internet ;). I see what you mean. Forcing disconnects is already possible though, and I do not know of any dupings done with that. The timer could also be restricted to be between 1 and 10 seconds.