Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Tiger Kior
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:02:00 -
[1]
When the NFS (need for speed) initiative was first announced and later implemented in various forms, it was met with a number of mixed opinions but overall it resulted in lots of good, forward thinking changes by CCP. Likewise many of the patches since Kali/Trinity/Revelations and now EA, have all kept in mind, from an outsiders perspective anyways, that speed is fundamentally a priority and the days of dirty work around patching are behind us.
However, there is one resoundingly clear issue that when it first appeared, was met with a fire storm of feedback and in it early days was met with similar urgency in the way CCP replied to the matter; the issue I speak of is that of the infamous desync.
To quickly clarify to avoid any interpretation issues, a desync is when the client software reports an "object" (be it your ship, another ship, a cargo container etc... typically non-fixed objects) to be at a certain location but the server reports the "object" at a different location. The obvious issue here is that other clients receive the "object" information relative to where the server see' it as being, not where the "desynced" client see it. The end result, in a common scenario, is that you appear at 0m on a station but in reality the server and other clients see you as being much farther from the station, sometimes as much as hundreds of km. Another common desync scenario is you warp with a cap fleet into a POS, everyone naturally gets bumped a bit, then when you all try to warp off the POS, a number of people show as "in warp" to your warpout point but in reality you are still on the grid at your former location.
Now, there was always a slight issue with "desyncs" going back as long as I can remember (4 years) however it was never really that major of an issue cause it more or less only affected an objects relationship between the client and server by mere meters at best (i.e: open container, you are at 1km from it but server tells you "not within 1500m). The issue of desyncs became a major "flaw" after the initial NFS patch, if i recall correctly - feel free to correct me. The magnitude of desyncs had exponentially been increased in addition to the creation of new and wild desync scenarios that had previously never been seen but are now day to day life in eve, a status quo of acceptance brought upon us not by our own desire but by the inaction on the issue by CCP.
At one time CCP worked hard and kept us updated frequently on the status of desyncs, how they were going about trouble shooting the matter, status of the trouble shooting and planned fixes including a number of sisi sessions with the community to attempt resolution of the issue. However, it slowly became apparent that the issue was much more complex than anticipated and the frequency of updates on all related fronts to the desync issue began to disappear as focus shifted away from it to other tasks.
So here we have it, in the eve of today as we know it, it is accepted knowledge that desyncs are part of the game. It is not really spoken of anymore in context of an issue to be fixed or as a game flaw, the GM's do not acknowledge it as an issue and they pawn it off as client side network issues, CCP does not speak of it at all anymore nor do you ever hear a developer utter the word let alone go near the topic.
It is fundamentally one of the largest issues affecting the way EVE is played today, yet everyone is content in accepting it. They do not accept it for what it is, they accept it for what it is misinterpreted as and what the GM' in countless petitions have spun it into being; network issues - lag, which are outside the realm of what CCP can control. This could not be further from the truth, the desync issue at heart boils down to the physics engine and how the client/server negotiate objection locations and the lack of any feature that allows the server to synchronize clients with object locations.
There you have it, desyncs, the unspoken status quo of eve.
|

Tiger Kior
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:02:00 -
[2]
When the NFS (need for speed) initiative was first announced and later implemented in various forms, it was met with a number of mixed opinions but overall it resulted in lots of good, forward thinking changes by CCP. Likewise many of the patches since Kali/Trinity/Revelations and now EA, have all kept in mind, from an outsiders perspective anyways, that speed is fundamentally a priority and the days of dirty work around patching are behind us.
However, there is one resoundingly clear issue that when it first appeared, was met with a fire storm of feedback and in it early days was met with similar urgency in the way CCP replied to the matter; the issue I speak of is that of the infamous desync.
To quickly clarify to avoid any interpretation issues, a desync is when the client software reports an "object" (be it your ship, another ship, a cargo container etc... typically non-fixed objects) to be at a certain location but the server reports the "object" at a different location. The obvious issue here is that other clients receive the "object" information relative to where the server see' it as being, not where the "desynced" client see it. The end result, in a common scenario, is that you appear at 0m on a station but in reality the server and other clients see you as being much farther from the station, sometimes as much as hundreds of km. Another common desync scenario is you warp with a cap fleet into a POS, everyone naturally gets bumped a bit, then when you all try to warp off the POS, a number of people show as "in warp" to your warpout point but in reality you are still on the grid at your former location.
Now, there was always a slight issue with "desyncs" going back as long as I can remember (4 years) however it was never really that major of an issue cause it more or less only affected an objects relationship between the client and server by mere meters at best (i.e: open container, you are at 1km from it but server tells you "not within 1500m). The issue of desyncs became a major "flaw" after the initial NFS patch, if i recall correctly - feel free to correct me. The magnitude of desyncs had exponentially been increased in addition to the creation of new and wild desync scenarios that had previously never been seen but are now day to day life in eve, a status quo of acceptance brought upon us not by our own desire but by the inaction on the issue by CCP.
At one time CCP worked hard and kept us updated frequently on the status of desyncs, how they were going about trouble shooting the matter, status of the trouble shooting and planned fixes including a number of sisi sessions with the community to attempt resolution of the issue. However, it slowly became apparent that the issue was much more complex than anticipated and the frequency of updates on all related fronts to the desync issue began to disappear as focus shifted away from it to other tasks.
So here we have it, in the eve of today as we know it, it is accepted knowledge that desyncs are part of the game. It is not really spoken of anymore in context of an issue to be fixed or as a game flaw, the GM's do not acknowledge it as an issue and they pawn it off as client side network issues, CCP does not speak of it at all anymore nor do you ever hear a developer utter the word let alone go near the topic.
It is fundamentally one of the largest issues affecting the way EVE is played today, yet everyone is content in accepting it. They do not accept it for what it is, they accept it for what it is misinterpreted as and what the GM' in countless petitions have spun it into being; network issues - lag, which are outside the realm of what CCP can control. This could not be further from the truth, the desync issue at heart boils down to the physics engine and how the client/server negotiate objection locations and the lack of any feature that allows the server to synchronize clients with object locations.
There you have it, desyncs, the unspoken status quo of eve. |

meracuza
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:14:00 -
[3]
I agree, didn't the goonies lose a titan to desync's? Oh the humanity... But really, desync's really affect the quality of gameplay. It's a shame that more time is being spent on in-station avatars then the game engine. Lag and desync's are kind of taken as status quo for 0.0 play. Fleet battles have become a game of chance mostly, who can spam a system first to lag it all up so your mods activate and the other side can't get pilots on the field. Too often the tactics we use are made to work around the deficiencies in the physics engines, instead of normal battlefield tactics, feint here, attack here, etc. It would be nice if that issue was addressed or at least made more of a priority. If I wanted to run around a space station with an avatar, I'd play Second Life or, eww, WoW (in space of course).
|

meracuza
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:14:00 -
[4]
I agree, didn't the goonies lose a titan to desync's? Oh the humanity... But really, desync's really affect the quality of gameplay. It's a shame that more time is being spent on in-station avatars then the game engine. Lag and desync's are kind of taken as status quo for 0.0 play. Fleet battles have become a game of chance mostly, who can spam a system first to lag it all up so your mods activate and the other side can't get pilots on the field. Too often the tactics we use are made to work around the deficiencies in the physics engines, instead of normal battlefield tactics, feint here, attack here, etc. It would be nice if that issue was addressed or at least made more of a priority. If I wanted to run around a space station with an avatar, I'd play Second Life or, eww, WoW (in space of course).
|

Arthur Pewty
Task Force Zener Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:17:00 -
[5]
Agreed. I would love for CCP to fix this or more importgantly tell us when the next attempt to fix itwill be made. There is nothing worse than not knowing - poor communication is more of a issue, normally, than the item itself being broken.
CCP - Please tell us when the next attempt to fix this will be made.
Arthur Pewty
|

Arthur Pewty
Task Force Zener Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:17:00 -
[6]
Agreed. I would love for CCP to fix this or more importgantly tell us when the next attempt to fix itwill be made. There is nothing worse than not knowing - poor communication is more of a issue, normally, than the item itself being broken.
CCP - Please tell us when the next attempt to fix this will be made.
Arthur Pewty |

refine achonce
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:25:00 -
[7]
I agree, it would be nice to know when we can expect to hear how CCP plans to fix this. New content is always nice but fixing major issues should take priority over that. Saying that it is client side network problems is a cop out. Trust me I work in IT and use it so I know. |

Zephyrante
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 15:44:00 -
[8]
Indeed it needs to be sorted out, atm Eve runs on cap ships and you get desyc each time you warp to a POS even when jumping to a cyno, its something painfull to hell more when you lose a ship to it and gets the , and it also happened into pve to me recently, lately i noticed a that its getting worst, 2 desyncs each Siege im on :(
|

Dah' Khanid
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:07:00 -
[9]
/Signed
Desyncs should be #1 priority to fix for CCP, it will make the endgame a lot more enjoyable to play for everyone.
|

Kraken Kill
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:10:00 -
[10]
This is my main, and my main says, we need a solution to desyncs from CCPs end, not by changing the way players need to play. |
|

Trism
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:11:00 -
[11]
agree
|

Vorce
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:11:00 -
[12]
/signed
Getting old and tiresome. Time we saw some improvements here. ---------- Sig goez 'ere |

WaiKin Beldar
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:12:00 -
[13]
/signed
|

Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:18:00 -
[14]
/signed
|

Optime Prime
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:19:00 -
[15]
/signed
|

hermina
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:20:00 -
[16]
/signed
|

MINORMESS
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:28:00 -
[17]
i am new but it sound like it needs worked on
dave
|

Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:28:00 -
[18]
I agree. The endgame gameplay has been suffering as of late with desync's and Server lag in systems/regions that aren't seeing the huge blobs that we've seen before.
Walking around in a station is as useful as our characters physical look. It's just fluff and doesn't really add anything to the game. There are so many more projects that could be tackled if the Server side and desync issues were corrected.
|

Tiger Kior
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:34:00 -
[19]
Please be mindful, this topic does not pertain to lag (in the context of server side node lag is what people are referring too I think); that is a different issue onto itself. This topic is relative to the desync issue, please confine your comments to that.
|

Buster Awesomo
ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:36:00 -
[20]
/signed ccp fix the desync and forget about the walking around stations we dont want it. look at :http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8472/titanhd9.png for the BOOM |
|
|

CCP Mitnal
C C P

|
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:57:00 -
[21]
Moved to Game Development.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|

Chunks Blown
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Tiger Kior Please be mindful, this topic does not pertain to lag (in the context of server side node lag is what people are referring too I think); that is a different issue onto itself. This topic is relative to the desync issue, please confine your comments to that.
While I will respect your willingness to keep this thread on a direct path, I will have to comment that I think, in the end, the two are linked and will have to both be corrected.
|

Praesus Lecti
Gallente Blueprint Haus Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:08:00 -
[23]
I find it odd that the server doesn't force the client to update itself to match the server. If the two disagree (the server thinks I'm at location X,Y,Z but the client thinks I'm at location X+100,Y+100,Z+100...the server should force the client to reposition me, aka rubberband me, to that location. That fact that it doesn't is rather odd. No other game I've played allows the client to do this for any significant period of time (unless hacks are used like MacroQuest, etc.)
This poses an interesting situation that to me, isn't logical. Say that you are desynced and you know it. You are sitting at a static location, not moving. If you zoom out on your camera and launch some drones, the drones will appear in space at the coordinates the server says you are at. If you then return the drones to your dronebay, they will proceed to fly to the location the client says you are at. Deploy them again and they appear back at the other location. Why are the deploy and return locations allowed to be different? How can the server, which knows full well where you are truly located, tell the drones to proceed to a totally different location in order to return to your drone bay?
If you think that is just a visual bug, it's not. In the time it takes the drones to travel from the point of deployment at your real location to entering your dronebay at your incorrect position, they can still be destroyed.
|

H Lecter
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:10:00 -
[24]
I'd be very glad to see a fix to this issue. I'm not a friend of major fleet battles, but when I happen to be in one, I prefer losing my ship to stupid mistakes/superior enemies/bad tactics on my side rather than factors beyond my influence.
/signed
|

Tiger Kior
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:11:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Chunks Blown
Originally by: Tiger Kior Please be mindful, this topic does not pertain to lag (in the context of server side node lag is what people are referring too I think); that is a different issue onto itself. This topic is relative to the desync issue, please confine your comments to that.
While I will respect your willingness to keep this thread on a direct path, I will have to comment that I think, in the end, the two are linked and will have to both be corrected.
Node lag will always exist as long as there are people in eve to fill them up. However related some may interpret desyncs and node lag to be, inherently they are two separate issues requiring different mediums of dialog. We have dealt with node lag and the inadequacies of nodes vs what people try to throw at them since the inception of eve, back when cramming more than a hundred people into a node would cause problems. At least these days you can get meaningful fights on some nodes with as many as 300-400 people in them, sometimes more depending on the nature of the combat.
So in short, yes node lag is an issue but it has come a long way, let us focus on the topic at hand though and that is desyncs and the lack of follow-up or any form of action by CCP on the matter.
|

Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:17:00 -
[26]
I agree, desyncs need some kind of update on info from CCP, they have been rather quite about any real problems relating to EVE as a whole lately.
|

ZigZag Joe
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:21:00 -
[27]
/sign
also, would a *slightly* larger scoop radius be the end of the world? kthxbai
|

Tiger Kior
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:24:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Reptzo I agree, desyncs need some kind of update on info from CCP, they have been rather quite about any real problems relating to EVE as a whole lately.
Let us give credit where credit is due, in recent patches CCP has put forward hundreds upon hundreds of fixes to address long standings bugs, quirks, UI issues and so forth. This is very commendable and is very much appreciated move on CCP part to tackle some of the longer standing bugs, just sit down and read for 5 minutes some of the recent patch notes and the sheer volume of fixes applied is a nice step forward for EVE as a whole.
However, this does not negate the issue of desyncs becoming a taboo topic and one of relative obscurity in relation to how CCP has dealt with it.
|

Malhom
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:29:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Malhom on 17/09/2008 17:29:48 Could be a hard work but.. should be done.
The creation of new stuff has been amazing but there are some issues that ruin the content if it is not playable.
Make your Best ppl.
|

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:32:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Moved to Game Development.
Moved to top of the "to be done list" is what we are looking for but at least it has been seen. 
If desync can't be prevented altogether CCP should at least work to detect when it has happened so amends can be made where needed.
I know of several players who have quit eve due to issues of desync and lag.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |