did diablo 2 desynch as badly?

"

Sneakypaw wrote:

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

wisdorin wrote:

oh and yeah it is easy like this, sure you can expect a perfect netcode...but its the first really free to play game, from an indie company which is accessable all over the world and you can play with peepz all over the world (which makes it even more desyncish when you play in partys on gateways far away)

but why should i make it so complicated, why sould i bother to read your other thread about the same issue...i play poe for about 2 years now, i know there were not so much desync at the start of the cb, but there were only a few players too...

it got worse with the start of ob, then at the end of ob i bought a new pc for less then 600 € (without monitor ofc) and it runs very well since then on max settings...

and sry but its not simplified, they could make they client not only displaying server side functions, methods and calculations, but then it would be "easy" to read/manipulate these functions...and it would be "easy" to RE the server client on the long turn...

did you read the statements of ggg addressed to this before creating a new thread?

dont think so..

To understand the issue before you comment on it, as if you do. It's not my thread by the way, it's a thread that specifies the technical issues and solutions, and features a debate between the OP and Mark.

Your understanding of it IS very simplified, it's not as if no desync=hacks, and hacks=no desync. It's much more complex than that.

I have read the statements and GGG comments, which I have addressed in my previous comments, which you hopefully read before responding.

I find it a bit hypocritical that you're asking me to read certain posts after denying to read the one which I'm using as a basis for my arguments.


If desync is caused by budget limitations, which I doubt, then that's fine, that means it can be fixed - assuming that it can be paid for.

Apparantly you didn't understand Chris's post. Desync can't be 'fixed', because it is innate with some of the design choices (design choices that I don't want to miss). It can only be improved.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Why does it matter if D2 or TQ or D3 or any other game *doesn't* have desync? It's the way PoE was coded that causes the desync, the developers admitted this - and the way its coded is to disallow cheating. Has nothing to do with it being an ARPG or anything else, it was a conscious decision on their end for good or ill.

I also love all the people who have no idea what they are talking about assuming they know what they are talking about because they have played videogames. It's like me arguing with my doctor over a procedure because I used to watch MASH.

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Why does it matter if D2 or TQ or D3 or any other game *doesn't* have desync? It's the way PoE was coded that causes the desync, the developers admitted this - and the way its coded is to disallow cheating. Has nothing to do with it being an ARPG or anything else, it was a conscious decision on their end for good or ill.

I also love all the people who have no idea what they are talking about assuming they know what they are talking about because they have played videogames. It's like me arguing with my doctor over a procedure because I used to watch MASH.

Chris' post implies that Desync can be reduced if compromising certain gameplay mechanics/features.

qwave's posts imply that these compromises are not as severe as GGG says.

No matter who you agree with, the fact is that nearly no one understands the deeper technical issues, meaning that we have to base our arguments on people who know what they're talking about.

This goes for both sides.

Comparing PoE to other games is only natural, that way we can show, without technical expertise, that other games, even older ones managed to at least partially resolve this issue without any severe compromises.

It all comes down to subjectivism, and I for one would like a stable game experience most of all.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Why does it matter if D2 or TQ or D3 or any other game *doesn't* have desync? It's the way PoE was coded that causes the desync, the developers admitted this - and the way its coded is to disallow cheating. Has nothing to do with it being an ARPG or anything else, it was a conscious decision on their end for good or ill.

I also love all the people who have no idea what they are talking about assuming they know what they are talking about because they have played videogames. It's like me arguing with my doctor over a procedure because I used to watch MASH.

Chris' post implies that Desync can be reduced if compromising certain gameplay mechanics/features.

qwave's posts imply that these compromises are not as severe as GGG says.

No matter who you agree with, the fact is that nearly no one understands the deeper technical issues, meaning that we have to base our arguments on people who know what they're talking about.

This goes for both sides.

Comparing PoE to other games is only natural, that way we can show, without technical expertise, that other games, even older ones managed to at least partially resolve this issue without any severe compromises.

It all comes down to subjectivism, and I for one would like a stable game experience most of all.

Qwave received a response from Carl that explained how he (Qwave) was assuming things about PoE's architecture which simply isn't true.

I acknowledge that I do not understand the technical issues revolving around desync, so I trust what the devs say because it makes absolutely no sense that a problem this severe - that has been brought up continually for over 2 years - wouldn't be fixed by now if a fix were possible.

However - other people - assume otherwise, that they know how to fix it. That it must be fixable because of some other game that has nothing to do with this game. That GGG is for some crazy reason intentionally allowing it to exist and on and on. Just absurd.

90% of the complaints of PoE are on one singular issue. The other 10% consists of complaints regarding the loot system/nerfs. If GGG could eliminate the single largest issue their game has I am sure they would, and I am certain that they are taking steps to minimize the issue because over my time with the game (close to 3 years) it has become substantially better.

"

Kexmeister wrote:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

"

Kexmeister wrote:

Chris' post implies that Desync can be reduced if compromising certain gameplay mechanics/features.

qwave's posts imply that these compromises are not as severe as GGG says.

No matter who you agree with, the fact is that nearly no one understands the deeper technical issues, meaning that we have to base our arguments on people who know what they're talking about.

This goes for both sides.

Comparing PoE to other games is only natural, that way we can show, without technical expertise, that other games, even older ones managed to at least partially resolve this issue without any severe compromises.

It all comes down to subjectivism, and I for one would like a stable game experience most of all.

Qwave received a response from Carl that explained how he (Qwave) was assuming things about PoE's architecture which simply isn't true.

I acknowledge that I do not understand the technical issues revolving around desync, so I trust what the devs say because it makes absolutely no sense that a problem this severe - that has been brought up continually for over 2 years - wouldn't be fixed by now if a fix were possible.

However - other people - assume otherwise, that they know how to fix it. That it must be fixable because of some other game that has nothing to do with this game. That GGG is for some crazy reason intentionally allowing it to exist and on and on. Just absurd.

90% of the complaints of PoE are on one singular issue. The other 10% consists of complaints regarding the loot system/nerfs. If GGG could eliminate the single largest issue their game has I am sure they would, and I am certain that they are taking steps to minimize the issue because over my time with the game (close to 3 years) it has become substantially better.

There hasn't really been any conclusion in the thread I'm referring to as of now, and assumptions might have been made, but there's still a debate going on.

I am not calling GGG incompetent in any way, and I like their game, but if mechanic/feature compromises are what's needed to please such a large part of the community, then they should consider it.

As for alternative solutions, I guess the problem could be indirectly handled by simply reducing overall monster damage in higher difficulties. That could at least stop most of the deaths from occuring, and open up some more viable build options.

"

wisdorin wrote:

but its the first really free to play game, from an indie company which is accessable all over the world and you can play with peepz all over the world

"

Sneakypaw wrote:

These are core mechanics that would have to change. And since GGG is making a game they would want to play I don't think they are changing the core. For examply eliminatiing being able to miss. They change core stuff like that and I can just as well go and play Diablo 3.