@GGG: Why did you not say something about anti-desync lockstep mode earlier?

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

TikoXi

Why do you seem to think it is malice or incompetence?

What about:
"Boss, I have this way we could redo the coding so that it can support two set ups (which as far as I know no other online game has ever done)"
"Okay, but because it is NEW GROUND that GGG is forging, we should be very careful and make sure it works 100% before we even talk about releasing it, because we don't want to go back and say 'sorry, although we said it is an option turns out it breaks the server'"
"Awesome, I will get right on it, and as soon as it has been fully completed, and passed QA to extensive testing, and made sure it doesn't break the current system, or the game in general, we can let people know! I hope they will be as happy as we will be if we can get this to work"


Some time later, after extensive coding and testing, GGG go "okay, it is ready, now we can tell everyone. I hope no one is an asshole saying that we are incompetent for doing something NO ONE has ever done before"

We're discussing GGG's origional stance of "we can't fix it." Specifically how Chris said that switching to a lockstep model was not a viable option for them. At the time, it wasn't (I believe). That changed, and GGG (perfectly within their rights) decided not to update us on that until their experiement showed promise. And when it did, they told us.

And we have been told.

I'm one of those that think they handled it perfectly. Because I use these forums, and know how tried and failed/tried and made it worse would have gone while trying to keep the community updated.

The fact that they recognised the long term infrastructure miss step that the original netcode was,and made course corrections, (whether the new systems sinks or floats) has changed the way I look at GGG as a company, developers and gamers. If the new system can fly, anything is possible given time.

"

TikoXi wrote:

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

TikoXi

Why do you seem to think it is malice or incompetence?

What about:
"Boss, I have this way we could redo the coding so that it can support two set ups (which as far as I know no other online game has ever done)"
"Okay, but because it is NEW GROUND that GGG is forging, we should be very careful and make sure it works 100% before we even talk about releasing it, because we don't want to go back and say 'sorry, although we said it is an option turns out it breaks the server'"
"Awesome, I will get right on it, and as soon as it has been fully completed, and passed QA to extensive testing, and made sure it doesn't break the current system, or the game in general, we can let people know! I hope they will be as happy as we will be if we can get this to work"


Some time later, after extensive coding and testing, GGG go "okay, it is ready, now we can tell everyone. I hope no one is an asshole saying that we are incompetent for doing something NO ONE has ever done before"

We're discussing GGG's origional stance of "we can't fix it." Specifically how Chris said that switching to a lockstep model was not a viable option for them. At the time, it wasn't (I believe). That changed, and GGG (perfectly within their rights) decided not to update us on that until their experiement showed promise. And when it did, they told us.

And we have been told.

So your stance is that at the time when they did not have the ability to write two separate net codes to both run at once (which once more, is a NEW thing that hasn't been done in online games before), they said it was not possible to CHANGE to lockstep.

Also note that the actual statement is that lockstep as a standalone model is not viable. They never said that having two netcodes is impossible, and they stand by the same statement that they want the client prediction model they have at the moment as an option (and many will still use this option).

And then you randomly call them incompetent for doing something that you have never done, because no one has ever done it?

I mean, how much more transparency does the OP need when you have the actual code write responding in his post?!?

GGG has been extremely transparent from the beginning about how they want to improve their game.

"

Catchafire2000 wrote:

I mean, how much more transparency does the OP need when you have the actual code write responding in his post?!?

GGG has been extremely transparent from the beginning about how they want to improve their game.

Yeeahhh... they kind of went dark on desync though. ( i think for good reason) but transparency is not a word I'd use when describing how the matter of desync and netcode has been handled. Past few years has mostly been a back and forth between players on the forum over the issue, while GGG has bit the bullet and quietly moved mountains.

That's what you do when you get serious about fixing/changing something.

They could've posted once a week that they're working on it but what's the point?

"

Xavderion wrote:

They could've posted once a week that they're working on it but what's the point?

Agreed.

Thing is, their silence on netcode isn't restricted to the development of this new netcode model. They literally haven't said a single thing that I could find about a contemporary improvement on the netcode. The devs have actually been very busy in improving the current model, probably as long as the desync threads have been around (though obviously with them not saying anything, tracking activity is difficult), but you would never have guessed by reading patch notes.

Smarter resync conditions, entropy-reducing client side AI, all of these massive improvements were rolled out under the radar and those who don't actively notice these improvements in the gameplay are none the wiser.

The most baffling part about it is, why wouldn't they add a little line to patch notes to inform the players of these improvements? Is it jut an oversight? Seems like a pretty big oversight when staying this quiet on such improvements actively feeds the false impression that GGG doesn't care about netcode or poor player experience as a result of bad netcode. If I quit PoE because of poor netcode experiences, I could easily be under the impression that no improvements have been made, full stop.

Desync is a very touchy subject. If GGG writes 'improvements to netcode' in the patch notes, you'll get an angry mob flooding the forums with 'IM STILL DESYNCING GGG ARE LIARS' threads all over the place. I think they handled it very well, only mention it when you have a real fix.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Desync is a very touchy subject. If GGG writes 'improvements to netcode' in the patch notes, you'll get an angry mob flooding the forums with 'IM STILL DESYNCING GGG ARE LIARS' threads all over the place. I think they handled it very well, only mention it when you have a real fix.

I have to agree with Xav here.