Offline Mode

"

Except that this is in fact a huge, huge deal. That's why I'm saying that I don't think you realize how much work it would be. The amount of work it would be is closer to rewriting the entire game than two weeks for one guy.

Think about this way. Look at a game like Diablo 3, where desync is much less of an issue because they delegate a small percentage more of their combat calculations to the client-side. Just from that difference, there have been numerous gigantic cheating issues, such as when at one point you could buy Radiant Star Gems for less than the amount they cost to craft because they were duped so much.

Having the ENTIRE game available to hackers means that they will be able to find any and all loopholes that might exist in the code to exploit. Code that is sufficiently different to prevent this would need to be different from the design up, basically, because any similarities leaves a potential loophole. It's not like developers intentionally leave loopholes in the code - they just happen, so covering all your bases requires you to not leave any potentials.

I definitely do not know exactly how much work it would take for GGG to make an offline mode, nor which of the many possible paths towards offline play they would take. Whether it's a two week, six months, or one year job, I'm still asking for GGG to realize how great it would be for their business and for the players and to figure out the best way to make it happen.

This is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater when there are numerous ways to keep the baby (offline mode) without having the bathwater (ruined economy). Big or small, it can be done.

"

bhavv wrote:

I was hugely active in the sacred 1 & 2 communities and I never say any hacking in those games. Only thing that dis happen was people uploading high level characters to download, and much later a character editor being made, which made it much better to carry on playing after 5+ years so you didn't have to keep on staring new characters at level 1.

I enjoyed Sacred 2, Diablo 2 and many other ARPGs that don't care about their economies. In asking for an offline mode to be considered for PoE, I am specifically not asking for that sort of naive implementation, because it is obvious just how much care goes into protecting the economy.

You can have both, and to say "it's too hard" is a cop out.

I'd totally pay 60 bucks to have an offline version of this game with LAN support.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

"

Making an offline mode means including versions of the server-side only code. It is not technically infeasible to make them subtly different or simply produce similar results than the online servers do. The attacks this could lead to might lead players to discover breakpoints of certain stats, and perhaps efficient places to farm. It would not, as is implied, give people the ability to give themselves whatever drops they want when playing online. Finally, when players discover something big, it gets patched. They're already in an effective position to adeptly respond to such issues. This reasoning only makes sense if offline mode were implemented in a strange and naive manner. Nobody is suggesting it be done that way.

I don't want to be rude, but the simple fact is that you just made most of that up without any real understanding of what you're saying. Almost everything about that paragraph is incorrect, and that renders the rest of the post irrelevant.

I agree completely. That paragraph is not only made-up, but the contents themselves make no sense. It's clear that TyrentKeel has not the slightest clue of what he is talking about. Not to mention, hacks and "attacks" (whatever that means) leading to players to discovering breakpoints of certain stats? Sounds like total garbage. No offense meant, too, just stating the facts.

No offense, but you're not really thinking this through reasonably. Your expectations are way off base, this is not anywhere near as easy to implement as you imagine, and the benefits for GGG are essentially made up to fit your narrative. There is basically zero practical reason for GGG to create offline mode when you actually sit and think about it. You need to be realistic, and realize that this is the real world, and not a world that bends to your will despite common sense.

"

"

Alysma wrote:

It still won't happen!!!

I can only imagine this happening as the game is dying out, and as a last farewell to people who want to play before the servers are shut down.

"

Evlesoa wrote:

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

"

Making an offline mode means including versions of the server-side only code. It is not technically infeasible to make them subtly different or simply produce similar results than the online servers do. The attacks this could lead to might lead players to discover breakpoints of certain stats, and perhaps efficient places to farm. It would not, as is implied, give people the ability to give themselves whatever drops they want when playing online. Finally, when players discover something big, it gets patched. They're already in an effective position to adeptly respond to such issues. This reasoning only makes sense if offline mode were implemented in a strange and naive manner. Nobody is suggesting it be done that way.

I don't want to be rude, but the simple fact is that you just made most of that up without any real understanding of what you're saying. Almost everything about that paragraph is incorrect, and that renders the rest of the post irrelevant.

I agree completely. That paragraph is not only made-up, but the contents themselves make no sense. It's clear that TyrentKeel has not the slightest clue of what he is talking about. Not to mention, hacks and "attacks" (whatever that means) leading to players to discovering breakpoints of certain stats? Sounds like total garbage. No offense meant, too, just stating the facts.

I understand that my claims have been hand-wavey and vague, but just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't make sense.

I did not respond to MonstaMunch because his post demonstrates such a lack of awareness of the topic at hand I did not feel elaborating was worth the effort. Yours does too, but since you quoted him, I will oblige you both with further explanation. It's hard to know which parts are unclear, since you understood so little that you thought the entire thing was made-up, so please excuse me if I appear to be explaining the obvious.

Point-by-point:

"not technically infeasible"
It means "it is possible." As in, they could choose to do this, but they are not choosing to.

"subtly different or simply produce similar results than the online servers do"
It means, you do not need to use the exact same code, or even the same language for the local offline client that the servers use. In this way, the threat of hacking as a result of an offline solution is almost entirely eliminated.

"attack"
It's another word for hacking. Hacking has so many meanings, but attack in this context means specifically an attempt to discover a reliable method of cheating the system. In my wildest dreams, I would not have imagined that was in any way unclear.

"attacks this could lead to"
This means people attempting to discover behaviours in the offline client that allow them to exploit the online client. Even a reasonable implementation of offline mode would not be perfect, but a reasonable implementation could render the discovery of such behaviours in the offline client useless in attempting to attack the online economy. Online services have come a long way since Diablo 2, and much more is known about how to secure them. To act as if adding an intelligently planned offline mode would destroy a sequestered online mode in this day and age is disingenuous and not to be believed.

"discover breakpoints of certain stats"
This refers to certain values above which you do not gain any advantage in stacking them futher. Say, for instance, that the cast speed scaling of Incinerate really stopped helping it charge faster after 10 casts per second. 10 casts per second would therefore be a cast speed breakpoint, and any further passive nodes would be a waste. I brought up this as an example of what people might discover more easily with access to an offline mode. It is no great threat to the economy. I only brought it up because I wanted to be thorough without expounding on every point in exhausting detail, as I'm doing now.


That's all the point-by-points. If the rest of my post really was not clear to you, explaining it further would be futile. None of what I said was in ignorance, but I freely admit that the state of their codebase is unknown to me and could make offline mode prohibitively effortful in the short term. I still think it's an immense value that is ultimately beneficial to the players, and easy to justify as a business decision.

I am very new to the game and community, and i love this game! But i absolutely can not play it unless i drive 25+ miles to a high-speed Internet source. My ping from home is in excess of 1600. I would gladly pay for an offline version much as i did for D1 and D2. So, by refusing the idea entirely, im being told i just simply dont get to experience this game.

And i personally want to experience the game!

"

Evlesoa wrote:

I agree completely. That paragraph is not only made-up, but the contents themselves make no sense. It's clear that TyrentKeel has not the slightest clue of what he is talking about. Not to mention, hacks and "attacks" (whatever that means) leading to players to discovering breakpoints of certain stats? Sounds like total garbage. No offense meant, too, just stating the facts.

I agree, it sounds like he's just repeating big words without understanding and unfairly dismissing counter-arguments.

Also, your signature incorrectly uses the Carrot and Stick idiom - the stick is behind the mule (for hitting).