did diablo 2 desynch as badly?

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

zachatta wrote:

Ok, how about I trump your argument for good.

GGG's biggest downfall in their game currently is desync. That usually is the big complaint (if any).

GGG likes making money.

If GGG could EASILY fix desync, you honestly think they would shrug it off for no reason?

Also you honestly believe that a bunch of arm chair programmers can come up with a quick fix 30 minute solution to a problem GGG, a group of experienced programmers working on this project for years, can't?

Obviously, for business reasons, if they could snap their fingers and make desync issues evaporate they would. However to do that they have to trust the client. GGG has stated a million times they won't trust the client to not allow cheating.

To them (and it is their game mind you) cheating is much worse than desync. So your only option is to utilize the tools you have around you to minimize desync issues.

So you can keep repeating the phrase "I am no expert but I know there must be a solution" but it will not make your statement true.

Thank you for making a real post.

It can not 'easily' be fixed, that's not what I'm claiming.

I'm using other games as examples, and the reasoning of the thorough explanation recently posted on the forums as a basis for my arguments.

It insists that the desync issues are mainly caused by the complex pathing/map layout of PoE.

Assuming this is true, it should be possible to allow things like unit overlapping for at least a partial reduction in these issues.

If this is not the case, and it is more complex than that, then communication is key. We would like a response or conclusion.
'We are working on a solution'
'We are not currently working on a solution'
'We will have the issues fixed'
'It's impossible to fix these issues'

Any of the conclusions would satisfy me, and the others would make me feel that they're actively listening.

The main problem right now is that I've not seen any recent responses to issue, please redirect me if I've missed something.

"

dandan88 wrote:

So many clueless people or terrible trolls.

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Nope, it's the mindset of someone who knows that desync isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I rather adapt to things I can't change than QQ about it.

That's what I'm saying.

Instead of criticising the game's flaws, you accept them and blame others for not doing so.

People are posting these things to get GGGs attention or response, not to change how the game works themselves.

"

zachatta wrote:

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

zachatta wrote:

Ok, how about I trump your argument for good.

GGG's biggest downfall in their game currently is desync. That usually is the big complaint (if any).

GGG likes making money.

If GGG could EASILY fix desync, you honestly think they would shrug it off for no reason?

Also you honestly believe that a bunch of arm chair programmers can come up with a quick fix 30 minute solution to a problem GGG, a group of experienced programmers working on this project for years, can't?

Obviously, for business reasons, if they could snap their fingers and make desync issues evaporate they would. However to do that they have to trust the client. GGG has stated a million times they won't trust the client to not allow cheating.

To them (and it is their game mind you) cheating is much worse than desync. So your only option is to utilize the tools you have around you to minimize desync issues.

So you can keep repeating the phrase "I am no expert but I know there must be a solution" but it will not make your statement true.

Thank you for making a real post.

It can not 'easily' be fixed, that's not what I'm claiming.

I'm using other games as examples, and the reasoning of the thorough explanation recently posted on the forums as a basis for my arguments.

It insists that the desync issues are mainly caused by the complex pathing/map layout of PoE.

Assuming this is true, it should be possible to allow things like unit overlapping for at least a partial reduction in these issues.

If this is not the case, and it is more complex than that, then communication is key. We would like a response or conclusion.
'We are working on a solution'
'We are not currently working on a solution'
'We will have the issues fixed'
'It's impossible to fix these issues'

Any of the conclusions would satisfy me, and the others would make me feel that they're actively listening.

The main problem right now is that I've not seen any recent responses to issue, please redirect me if I've missed something.

Couple things:

You assume that GGG owes an explanation to it's customers on a daily desync status, which is not true.

However, as far as conclusion goes, you don't need one because one is implied, ill repeat it again since you missed it:

GGG likes making money
GGG realizes desync is an issue
GGG concludes that if desync could be solved more revenue would be generated (more customers)
GGG has some kind of plan for working on desync issues

You don't need that stated, it is implied by their business model.

Also though, for your conclusion I guess if you read Chris's manifesto on desync, or whatnot you will have to search for it, he clearly explains in detail issues involving desync. Probably suggesting along the lines that "There is no solution for it".

Personally I believe they probably devote some time to brainstorming different ideas, simply because that would increase their revenue.

"

Kexmeister wrote:

As I said, communcation is key.

Letting your customers assume things is not the way to go.

As long as they don't respond properly, their forums will be infested with these threads.

Most of Chris' points are about not wanting to compromise certain, often trivial, things for a more stable game experience.

I hope they're at least considering a solution, but until then, people have the right to complain on the forums.

"

Mr_Bill wrote:

Chris posted the results of one of the game developer conferences on the subject a bit ago (can't seem to find it right now) but the consensus of all the gaming companies were that you have to decide on server side or client side processing and accept the drawbacks and benefits of them.

Server Side - some desync, less duping/exploit, lower client system requirements.

Client - no desync, duping/exloits will happen, greater client system requirements.

They obviously chose Server Side and its characteristics. They occasionally come up with better predictive client side code to cover a few causes of desync but it will NEVER go away completely.

Its like the most beautiful girl in the world has herpes, you either accept it or walk away. Constantly giving her crap about it won't accomplish anything.

"

Kexmeister wrote:

As I said, communcation is key.

Letting your customers assume things is not the way to go.

As long as they don't respond properly, their forums will be infested with these threads.

Most of Chris' points are about not wanting to compromise certain, often trivial, things for a more stable game experience.

I hope they're at least considering a solution, but until then, people have the right to complain on the forums.