ScrotieMcB vs Desync Dev Manifesto (Massive Wall Map of Text)
|
and what is funniest is that: people re-discovered how bad desync really is because of new melee-skill. many, many players play ranged only (and they are not that much affected by desync) and they are the 'mass' that does not complain or even dismiss desync as an issue.
with reave - they all wanted to check it out and it struck them as a lightning. desync is there and it SUX BADLY! it sux badly enough to make this skill completely worthless in some/many cases thanks for the reave GGG, genie is out of the bottle now btw. you 'manifesto' etc is cool et al, but currently desync makes this game not fun too frequently. game that is not fun - is a dead game. no matter how great the ideas behind are. adding monster position once a second to the frame (or whatever other system you use) shouldnt be that hard and will not in any way affect your 'hardcore' mechanics. these mechanics that are not working anyway because you try to hit monster that isnt there you dont have much time left. d3ex is coming and you can be sure - it will not have desync issues and the combat will feel at its best (and i hope they fix 'the dull aspect'). oh and if you count on 'launch'. too late, this game had its launch - no matter how you call it, open beta or whatnot. the peak of interest is behind this game - people that quit because of desync will not be coming back until you really and i mean really improve it. |
|
|
I think a few people in this thread are clinging to a "single player only" vision of PoE where trusting the client would be fine, because the gameplay would essentially be a solo experience. Just because you are allowed to play that way if you so choose does not mean that is the primary vision for the game. Multiplayer and trading are both important elements, and in order to take those elements seriously one cannot use a trust-the-client architecture. With single-player, I understand that cheating is essentially a victimless crime, the only person who "suffers" is the cheater themselves, and that it actually makes sense to be pro-modification so that you can open things up for the modding community... but once you add trading, party play, PvP, competitive racing, never trusting the client becomes important, because cheating now has more victims than just the perpetrator. Those who are casually promoting "trust the client" haven't thought out all the ramifications it would have; those who are seriously promoting the concept are single-player separatists who want a different game than the rest of us.
Ranged has desync issues too. Actually, if you take your finger off of the shift key, they're pretty close to the same issues as melee; you'll still teleport into rooms, but instead of walking all the way to a corner you'll stand just inside the doorway. I guess the main difference here is that players have better figured out how to cope with the ranged desync through the use of hold-position and other techniques. "I'd call it a well-made, and perhaps revolutionary, anti-theft system in a shitty car. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Aug 25, 2013, 5:39:01 PM
|
|
" So, instead of an aRPG, with multiplayer options, optional trading, modding, access all areas content, no real economy, fun crafting and awesome performance and combat. Someone decided to make an aRPG, where grouping was all but required, trading was necessary to access content, modding prohibited, trading and economy tuned drops and as a result completely broken performance and combat. Why would anyone do that? I know the answer is 'for a niche HC group' but the game is anything but hardcore and do the target so called HC audience really prefer shitty desync just to have a shopping competition? The next time I teleport into a room full of death, I'll remind myself, this is so johnnypretendHC can have instant gratification progress. Casually casual. Last edited by TheAnuhart#4741 on Aug 25, 2013, 6:01:44 PM
|
|
" I think you are heavily overreacting. I never implied it should happen. I just used it as an example of a solution implemented in games across genres for decades. We all know GGG is going directly for the always-online philosophy. Your character is even interconnected with their forums. Sure, this is very advanced. It's very novel, even. But if you want the stakes that high, then do it right. In other words: " Last edited by tikitaki#3010 on Aug 25, 2013, 6:11:26 PM
|
|
|
hmm i think you are a bit naive about solo, multiplayer thingy, multiplayer doesnt make the game experience amazing, it is there for to make more money.
I always think some people are so simple, they are getting ruled by religions, emotions lots of stuff. Multiplayer is normally makes you play with others, but not in rpg games. It is there to control you more like it. Best example for non-multiplayer game elder scrolls skyrim, now they making it online too, the result game is ruined. Hacking is not a good excuse, if people wants to get 100000000 dps , its up to them, there will be no challenge. I really don't like everygame needs an online platform now, even SIMCITY!!!!! to make more money. I am really not interesting in trading or messy 6 player mapping, you can't fucking see what is going on. Too busy... and boring. My_Bloody_Valentine
|
|
" Eh, I can't bare to play something like skyrim precisely because it has no multiplayer (okay, that's not the ONLY reason). Take skyrim, as it is, add multiplayer and I'll probably be all over it though. I'm almost entirely certain that the reason skyrim doesn't have multiplayer is more because of technical issues than anything else. There is absolutely no question that many many people enjoy cooperative play more than solo, regardless of the genre. Diablo & Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Torchlight 2, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Icewind Dale. Neverwinter Nights. Borderlands 1 & 2. PoE. All of those games I found far, far more enjoyable coop. |
|
"Because you really couldn't have any PvP or trading or racing or competitive ladder races to 100 with a trust-the-client model. Saying they'd be "optional" is a cop-out; cheating would also be "optional" (not prohibited) so there wouldn't be any fair basis to conduct those activities and have them matter. The only way a trust-the-client model works is in an exclusively single-player context, or in some kind of multiplayer context where cheating is essentially permitted (usually a trade-off to keep the game mod-able, which is why mods rather than the main game often become the primary multiplayer of such games, such as DotA). I guess the exception is non-RNG, start-from-zero PvP games, Starcraft 2 for example. That game uses an exclusively trust-the-client method; from a netcode perspective, your client is receiving your opponent's moves, and it recreates the gamestate from there (this is why it's so easy for SC2 to create replays). This allows for maphacks in that game as well (or even possibly highlighting your opponent's recent actions on the minimap), but rampant cheating doesn't happen too often. Why? Because there isn't any RNG (a hack can't make all of your rolls lucky), and when it comes to interactions with non-player objects (minerals & vespene) your opponents would eventually catch on if you were much richer than you should be given your levels of resources collectors; this is why the best games in that genre promote reconnaissance abilities/strategies, which not only make sense in terms of legitimately predicting enemy movements but also help to hamper the primary forms of cheating. It's still not a perfect system though; this is why high-level SC2 (and SC1) competition is heavily refereed; checking each player's computer for the absence of hacks is required to prevent cheating. Even in systems better optimized for it, trusting the client creates problems. In an ARPG, the results of trusting the client are well-known. You get a Diablo 2 style hack/bot/dupe fest with a fake economy and the need for heavy community policing of the PvP scene to encourage "legit" dueling, while the non-community PvP scene degenerates into a honourless hackfest where triggering exploits is the path to victory. This is a sacrifice we don't need to make. Perhaps you believe that GGG has given all they have into the current method, that it cannot work, and therefore it must be abandoned because this is as good as it gets. But it isn't; it's obvious that the current GGG netcode is not nearly as optimized as it could be, even from the viewpoint of never trusting the client. There's a lot still be to done, and I personally have no doubt in my mind that it is possible to create a low-desync game on a never-trust-the-client model. That's what my entire opening post was about. If you're upset with grouping or trading or the economy, perhaps you have valid concerns. And that's fine. But trusting the client wouldn't solve those problems, it would throw those systems in the trash can. Netcode choices cannot fix those systems, the only thing it can do is amputate them. So why would anyone do that, choose a never-trust-the-client model? Well, because GGG wants to make the mod here, not just make the engine which the mod uses. But more importantly, because we don't need to sacrifice the multiplayer competitive aspects of the game in order to make the game work. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Aug 25, 2013, 6:47:26 PM
|
|
|
It looks like most of us spending more time in the forums than playing the game :P
My_Bloody_Valentine
|
|
|
Spoiler
" I'm just gobsmacked that people put competition in a game, before the actual gameplay in the game they are competing in. Although when that competition largely means shopping, I suppose gameplay doesn't matter. But then in the short races, where shopping matters least and gameplay matters most, it's more wild luck if you live to win or die and lose, due to the poor sync which is a result of that very competition. Lol. Casually casual.
|
|
|
"it certainly has its flaws and can cause some terrible gameplay experiences"
This coming from a dev just makes me want to say.... Thank you for being up front with your community. I've maybe contributed around $30 total and you just saved me from another penny spent. To anyone who actually gets entertainment from such shit... Please have fun with whatever is of value in my stash (maybe 3 exalts worth). [mod edit - removed] @DEVS: FUCK YOUR OUTLOOK ON GAMING, IT'S RUINING IT WORSE THAN CHEATERS DO! Last edited by Julia_GGG#1844 on Aug 25, 2013, 7:10:40 PM
|
|
