| 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! |
|
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:38:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tiger Kior
Originally by: Reptzo
I said stuff.
You said stuff.
I am not saying CCP isn't doing anything about it. I am very aware and grateful for the bug fixes of late. I am simply saying that no info comes out until the patch does. What I am saying is that it seems like we don't find out whats happening until it happens. Almost like they could have all the fixes we could ever want, but we wouldn't know till the patch notes came out. While they are working on lots of things, the lack of information flow gives the "impression" that nothing is being done. And perception is reality, if players as a whole feel CCP is doing nothing, it doesn't matter if they are doing everything possible.
|
Tiger Kior
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:41:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Tiger Kior
Originally by: Reptzo
I said stuff.
You said stuff.
I am not saying CCP isn't doing anything about it. I am very aware and grateful for the bug fixes of late. I am simply saying that no info comes out until the patch does. What I am saying is that it seems like we don't find out whats happening until it happens. Almost like they could have all the fixes we could ever want, but we wouldn't know till the patch notes came out. While they are working on lots of things, the lack of information flow gives the "impression" that nothing is being done. And perception is reality, if players as a whole feel CCP is doing nothing, it doesn't matter if they are doing everything possible.
Well said, CCP should put emphasis on reviving the dev blogs to become as active as they once used to be and be more forthcoming on what is in the pipe line of the development team(s).
|
Calypso's Wrath
Caldari
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:43:00 -
[33]
When I jump into a 100 on 100 fleet fight, I EXPECT a desync to happen. The culture of this game has "trained" me to expect this. I know that sending client updates for 3000 ships, drones, corpse, wrecks puts the node under load and wait for that slight frame jump that I find happens (to me, but don't trust that, i play the game with no pants and drunk)
The Desyncs that ABSOLUTELY need to be fixed are those ones that happen when its a 20 on 20 (or below) There is no reason that we AS players should have to deal with this, the nodes should be able to handle these without issue or lag for that matter.
|
Tiger Kior
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:47:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
When I jump into a 100 on 100 fleet fight, I EXPECT a desync to happen. The culture of this game has "trained" me to expect this. I know that sending client updates for 3000 ships, drones, corpse, wrecks puts the node under load and wait for that slight frame jump that I find happens (to me, but don't trust that, i play the game with no pants and drunk)
The Desyncs that ABSOLUTELY need to be fixed are those ones that happen when its a 20 on 20 (or below) There is no reason that we AS players should have to deal with this, the nodes should be able to handle these without issue or lag for that matter.
That is a very valid point, an example of a very desync sensitive small gang warfare situation is rr bs gangs. If one or two of your bs in a 15-20 man gang with rr setup ends up desync, they are dead when traditionally had they been capable, client and server permitting, to maintain the range for remote reps, they would not have died.
|
kalbrak
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 17:56:00 -
[35]
/signed
|
Bupil
3B Legio IX
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:05:00 -
[36]
/signed
|
bokewalka
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:17:00 -
[37]
/signed
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:19:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
When I jump into a 100 on 100 fleet fight, I EXPECT a desync to happen. The culture of this game has "trained" me to expect this. I know that sending client updates for 3000 ships, drones, corpse, wrecks puts the node under load and wait for that slight frame jump that I find happens (to me, but don't trust that, i play the game with no pants and drunk)
The Desyncs that ABSOLUTELY need to be fixed are those ones that happen when its a 20 on 20 (or below) There is no reason that we AS players should have to deal with this, the nodes should be able to handle these without issue or lag for that matter.
I totally agree with this, desyncs cause there is multiple hundreds of people in a fight is understandable. But when you are running a mission, solo, and you get desynced, how does that happen? Why is it considered acceptable?
|
TroNaaR
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:28:00 -
[39]
/signed a million times over.
Great post and SPOT ON
|
Calypso's Wrath
Caldari
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
I said stuff
I totally agree with this, desyncs cause there is multiple hundreds of people in a fight is understandable. But when you are running a mission, solo, and you get desynced, how does that happen? Why is it considered acceptable?
Its acceptable because the logs, they don't show anything 
|
|
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:32:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
Its acceptable because the logs, they don't show anything
Personally, I don't think they have any logs, cause they never show anything. No matter what the situation, the logs never help you.
|
Scrapple
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:35:00 -
[42]
/signed.
The worst part of this whole issue is that it does not always seem to effect everyone equally. So one side in a fight may have half of their pilots load the grid actually SEE enemies to shoot at whereas the other side may only have a few percent load the grid and subsequently die a horrible death.
Please, either dedicate more resources and solve the problem, or change the nature of fleet combat and admit defeat.
But please, admit there is a problem.
|
n00b alt3
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 18:41:00 -
[43]
i've lost quite a number of ships to desyncs, often with only one or two other people in system, even having been able to reset my chient to actually be able to fight would have been outstanding. /signed
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Calypso's Wrath
I said stuff
I totally agree with this, desyncs cause there is multiple hundreds of people in a fight is understandable. But when you are running a mission, solo, and you get desynced, how does that happen? Why is it considered acceptable?
Its acceptable because the logs, they don't show anything
I got one ship back once, so i think there are some logged somwhere, eithr that or the gm's just role dice for your petition outcome.
|
Frau Formaggio
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 19:14:00 -
[44]
/signed
I won't even go emo... Just fix it.
|
Nostradamous
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 22:48:00 -
[45]
/signed
|
Teck7
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 11:00:00 -
[46]
/signed
|
Jennehed
Task Force Zener
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 15:54:00 -
[47]
/signed
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 03:17:00 -
[48]
The strange part is that we all know what causes desyncs: bumping. 500 people or 5 people in a system, it doesn't really matter. I've been desynced bumping a raven off a gate a few times and in blobbing cap fleets. It is not 100% reproduceable, but I am sure that if you go on Sisi and bump something 50 times, you will get desynced. I'm no coder, but if you know the cause of the problem, shouldn't it be fairly easy to fix?
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Fennicus
Amarr
Heracles.
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 15:48:00 -
[49]
Seems to happen in other online games too (*cough*WoW*cough*). Also /signed from me, it's highly annoying.
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 15:52:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Fennicus
Seems to happen in other online games too (*cough*WoW*cough*). Also /signed from me, it's highly annoying.
Yes, WoW also has desync. But the difference is that WoW forces a client update, which is why your character is running, and then is suddenly back 10 feet or something. Looks like your character is jumping around. The problem with EvE is that it doesn't seem to force any kind of client update.
|
|
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 15:52:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Fennicus
Seems to happen in other online games too (*cough*WoW*cough*). Also /signed from me, it's highly annoying.
Yes, WoW also has desync. But the difference is that WoW forces a client update, which is why your character is running, and then is suddenly back 10 feet or something. Looks like your character is jumping around. The problem with EvE is that it doesn't seem to force any kind of client update.
A forced client update feature every X minutes would go a long way to fix desyncs but it would not be addressing the main issue itself; what is causing the desyncs and actually fixing the issue. However, any progress - any change, that advances the state of the game for the better is sufficient but inaction on this topic is just not acceptable anymore.
|
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 16:46:00 -
[52]
I've not long been back to playing the game again, and tbh I didn't know this was still an issue.
So yes, a wall of acceptance and silence does seem to prevail.
Information on this subject, from CCP, would be a start.
Good thread, so far.
P.S. lo Bobby \o
Mag's
Originally by: Avernus
One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you. |
Tappits
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 16:59:00 -
[53]
/signed
----------------------------------------------
Pro BOB?????
I fail At forums |
Estoika Chonda
3B Legio IX
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 17:11:00 -
[54]
/signed
|
Frobond
Gallente
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 17:46:00 -
[55]
/Signed- please fix this ccp we don't care about walking around stations.
|
Jones 1st
Gallente
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 15:15:00 -
[56]
/yup
|
Man Hatter
Caldari
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 15:16:00 -
[57]
/yes
|
Sirus McCabe
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 15:27:00 -
[58]
/signed - current problems should be at least adressed before aditions are made, avoiding a topic can only last soo long
|
Mataki Onimareu
Gallente
Central Research Nexus
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 15:52:00 -
[59]
/signed - They should fix what they have instead of making new features.
|
Col Callahan
Caldari
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 22:06:00 -
[60]
Quote:
During the downtime today, Sunday 21st September, we deployed a new feature to Tranquility. The Stargate will now check how many players there are in the system and deny access if you attempt to jump into it when too many players are present. In addition to this you will not be able to login on a character if the system has too many players. We have also increased the amount of GMs this evening and if you are unable to login, please press the ESC button and submit a petition in the Stuck category. This is a temporary solution to this issue, we are working on a permanent feature which has the highest priority and will be implemented as soon as possible.
Seems it is on there minds, but now we beg the question. how many players in one solar system will fill the cap?|
/signed
|
|
|
Ein Spiegel
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 17:22:00 -
[61]
Desync doesn't always mean YOU lose a ship either. Sometimes it means you can kill someone horribly without them ever knowing you were there. I lost a rapier to behavior which I suspect may be linked to a desync... it's only suspicion, of course, because the player that killed me didn't see anything wrong and of course the logs show nothing.
(Scenario: I'm in a fight that is 2v2, becomes 2v3 but the third ship never appears in space or on overview. In fact, the third ship is only shown in the combatlog. The error message when trying to warp out when not scrambled only says "External factors are preventing...")
/FIX DESYNC PREASE
|
Reptar Dragon
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 21:48:00 -
[62]
/SIGNED
I've been desync'd and lagged to oblivion with only 6 people in a system, it's not an obvious server capacity problem. CCP, please force us to petition for things that really don't show up in logs, and not for things that do, but apparently don't anyways.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 22:23:00 -
[63]
Honestly I won't take CCP's "we're very serious about performance" stance seriously until lag and desync's at the very least show up on the known issues list. I won't bother helping out with bug testing/etc free of cost when I know that serious bugs don't even get tracked unless the fall into the "easy to fix and not terribly nasty sounding" category.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 00:07:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Praesus Lecti
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?
This is my understanding of how it works.
>Client's ship location is desynced.
>Client tells server "I'm deploying drones"
>Server tells client that drones are deployed at location X.
>Drones appear at location X for the client, which is far away from the ship.
>Client tells server "I'm telling my drones to return to the drone bay"
>Server tells client: "the drones are moving towards your ship"
The client and server then move their drones towards the player's ship. Since the client's ship location is desynced, it sees them moving for quite a while. The server, however, doesn't see the drones move at all because they're already at the player's ship.
>The drones reach the player's ship from the client's perspective
>Client tells server: "ok scoop all my drones to the drone bay"
Even though the server sees the drones at a completely different location than the client, it scoops them anyway because they're close enough.
>Server tells client "Drones have been scooped"
Basically the problem is that the server doesn't scoop the drones until the client tells it to, regardless of what the server sees. This also causes all sorts of other problems.
For example, let's say the server sees the drones as being within scoop range, but the client doesn't. If the user tries to scoop their drones, that command will be stopped at the client since the client doesn't think the drones are in scoop range, even though the command would have succeeded if it had been sent to the server.
|
Fenix Zealot
Caldari
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 17:41:00 -
[65]
I recall once a month or 2 back when i was on the test server flying a wyvern around that someone had loaned me, i had become desynced and restarted my client to correct this. AFter logging back in i noticed a CCP player in local and i convoed that individual (i have since forgotten the name). I asked that CCP individual if they knew why ships get desynced so often. The response i got was one of confusion. "what do you mean desynced?" was the answer i got. When i proceeded to say that its when the server and client see the same ship in different locations the response i got essentially went along the lines of "that doesn't happen"
It does seem as if everyone has seen fit to stick their heads into the sand as certain animals do when they are afraid of a threat. (devs and players and GMs are all at fault for ignoring this problem to some extent) It is about time that a form of outcry has finally come up here on the forums about it again. The general community has spoken, it is time for a kind of official response from the devs/gms to come to light about this problem. Even if the devs/gms decide not to fix this problem, acknowledgement of it would be more than appreciated.
The next time i talk to a BH or ISD BH or CCP on the test server, or anywhere, rather than meet confusion and ignorance about this obvious problem, at the very leased i would expect some tips, or guidelines, or reccomendations about how to avoid it, or fix it quickly, even if there is no easy solution for the whole problem.
Anyone who has spent 5 minutes in the capital FFA on singularity, or anyone who has ever flown a capital anywhere for more than 5 minutes will notice this desync problem regularly. I have never personally witnessed it in a sub capital myself, but i know of plenty of people who have had it get them killed while flying sub capitals... some more than once.
It is also good to note that in addition to bumping of any kind, lag, and problems while warping, desyncs also happen between any ships that engage in refitting while in space via use of a carrier/mothership or ship maintenance bay at a POS. When i engage in combat using my carrier, i carry minor refitting equipment with me for not only myself, but some of my fleet mates as well. depending on circumstances, this has the potential to allow extreemly violent strategy changes during combat that without question can and will change the outcome in my/our favor. This advantage in preparation and tactical thinking is made less meaningful if everyone that participates gets desynced by sometimes as much as 10+km... Tactical thinking and versitile and adaptive strategies should never get a fleet killed by a fault or glitch in the game engine.
To allow such a fault/glitch to eliminate the advantage of using ones critical thinking skills in favor of cookie-cutter gank n tank type mindlessness is a direct insult and a stab in the back to the utter brilliance that represents all the hard work and dedication that has gone into making this game the greatest MMO out there.
/signed a trillion times over.
please we beg you to consider this problem and find a way to fix it.
En Taro Adun! |
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 21:27:00 -
[66]
where did the other 2 pages go in this thread???? or are there 2 threads with the same name??
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 22:32:00 -
[67]
Hi.
I just cleaned out the nonconstructive and forum rule breaking "/signed" posts adding nothing but noise to this otherwise somewhat constructive thread. I was hoping that I would have time to write a proper response to the questions raised in this thread, but I didn't have time for it.
Please keep this thread clean of personal attacks and speculation presented as facts. I'm hoping to find time to supply you with some answers for the questions in the near future.
|
|
Tiger Kior
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:24:00 -
[68]
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Hi.
I just cleaned out the nonconstructive and forum rule breaking "/signed" posts adding nothing but noise to this otherwise somewhat constructive thread. I was hoping that I would have time to write a proper response to the questions raised in this thread, but I didn't have time for it.
Please keep this thread clean of personal attacks and speculation presented as facts. I'm hoping to find time to supply you with some answers for the questions in the near future.
However condescending you just came off as, we do all look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
CCP Casqade
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:13:00 -
[69]
Coming through as condescending was not my intention. I am sorry if I did.
|
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:26:00 -
[70]
On a somewhat related note, this could also be an avenue to explore for kicking idle players. The server should not be sending data to clients who are, for all intents and purposes, "dead."
This is, of course, assuming the amount of data sent to an idle client (or multiple idle clients, such as in Jita) is substantial enough to cause unnecessary load on the server.
|
|
|
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:36:00 -
[71]
Originally by: CCP Casqade
Coming through as condescending was not my intention. I am sorry if I did.
I did not feel you were being condescending. I thought it was cool that you were cleaning up the thread and that you planned on responding.
|
Tiger Kior
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 06:06:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Tiger Kior on 25/09/2008 06:07:02
Originally by: Seth Ruin
On a somewhat related note, this could also be an avenue to explore for kicking idle players. The server should not be sending data to clients who are, for all intents and purposes, "dead."
This is, of course, assuming the amount of data sent to an idle client (or multiple idle clients, such as in Jita) is substantial enough to cause unnecessary load on the server.
Perhaps if a client meets certain criteria for an idle kick, such as the following logic:
1) node has >X users
2) user has been idle for >X minutes
3) user is one of docked, cloaked, inside a force field
If the above criteria is met then an idle disconnect is imposed on the user. Although this is not directly related in of itself to the desync topic, it is nevertheless by extension of the overall issue of fleet fights a related idea and does have merit for consideration in my opinion.
|
Azuse
Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 10:36:00 -
[73]
I'd like to add something witty, or intuitive, but the reality is i cannot add anything other than the client not forcibly updating with the server is just sloppy, either that or it is but the packets are getting lost en rout which i doubt.
The new networking layer has made my eve smoother it's true (and welcome) but the other week we lost a dread who logged in at a ss then warped to a pos, at least he activated warp but on his screen never moved, and preceded to be ganked by a fleet which he saw on his overview 9au away. People in the pos saw him on their overviews 9au away therefore no one could do anything and of course, he petition like so many others comes back as log showing nothing wrong which, ironically, is probably true. The only constant was the server, therefore the logs, could agree that the dread was indeed at the pod and being shot, unfortunately every client involved agreed that it was 9au away.
Which begs the question if the server is running the game, and the client is drawing its data from the server running the game, why can clients interact with each other when the data they are using is clearly different from the servers?
-------------------------
|
Imhothar Xarodit
Minmatar
Wolverine Solutions
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 16:19:00 -
[74]
What I know about desyncs...
It somehow has a high tendency on affecting capital, meaning large and slow ships.
And as far as I have experienced it now it always happened after a bump. My client didn't get the "bump move" but the server did, meaning on the client side it looked like I hadn/t bumped or the bump was just a really small one, but the server has you on the "bumped away" destination.
So far it happened very often when warping the carrier into a fleet (bumping on warp drop-off in general is a good candidate) and boarding a carrier from inside a ship maint array when too close to the structure. It's a chance based thing really, and yes I did provide bug reports.
Would really be good to get some feedback.
The whole bumping thing in EVE is broken anyway, the physics engine needs a redesign, it is ridiculous that a ship with 100m/s top speed manages to "emergency drive" from an imminent collision at 500m/s and then takes 10 minutes to get back down to normal speed (and hence controllable again).
One big step would be to make the "Approach" command slow down and stop at the collision edge and not ramming the object at full speed. Would make a big difference and bumping more difficult to be exploited.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 17:44:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit
The whole bumping thing in EVE is broken anyway, the physics engine needs a redesign, it is ridiculous that a ship with 100m/s top speed manages to "emergency drive" from an imminent collision at 500m/s and then takes 10 minutes to get back down to normal speed (and hence controllable again).
One big step would be to make the "Approach" command slow down and stop at the collision edge and not ramming the object at full speed. Would make a big difference and bumping more difficult to be exploited.
At the moment we have more or less perfect elastic collision between ships. If the coefficient of restitution was reduced, people wouldn't travel quite so fast after being bumped, which would help reduce the load spike from a 'causality bubble ' calculation point of view. |
Imhothar Xarodit
Minmatar
Wolverine Solutions
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 22:22:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Imhothar Xarodit on 29/09/2008 22:24:03
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
At the moment we have more or less perfect elastic collision between ships. If the coefficient of restitution was reduced, people wouldn't travel quite so fast after being bumped, which would help reduce the load spike from a 'causality bubble ' calculation point of view.
Thanks for not contributing to the topic.
I know physics and know the math behind collisions. And it stil doesn't expolain how a shuttle at 500m\s manages to bump a Raven in the opposite direction if colliding head-to-head. The point is that "collisions" in Eve aren't real collisions but (as has been stated by several devs already) a means of the ship computer to escape the real collisions. Did you ever wonder why the ship turns around after a bump? Because the ship can only fly in the direction it is pointing (aka there is no drift), but that might be more a limitation of the physics engine.
Anyway, the Eve physics are not part of this topic. I mentioned bumping because I only experience desyncs after being bumped in a capital. Reducing the possibilities of bumping also reduces the possibilities of desyncs. Changing the way approach works is a step. I mean, if I want to approach somebody, I don't want to RAM him at max speed but rather stop in front of him. The only other intent is bumping and seems connected to desyncs somehow... |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 12:20:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit
I know physics and know the math behind collisions. And it stil doesn't explain how a shuttle at 500m\s manages to bump a Raven in the opposite direction if colliding head-to-head.
This is still possible in cases where the raven is moving slowly, but certainly not at full speed.
Quote:
Did you ever wonder why the ship turns around after a bump? Because the ship can only fly in the direction it is pointing (aka there is no drift), but that might be more a limitation of the physics engine.
I think ship orientation is a purely client-side graphical feature, possibly tied to align time but not having any effect on anything.
Quote:
Reducing the possibilities of bumping also reduces the possibilities of desyncs. Changing the way approach works is a step. I mean, if I want to approach somebody, I don't want to RAM him at max speed but rather stop in front of him. The only other intent is bumping and seems connected to desyncs somehow...
I doubt whether that would actually save much work - you're just replacing the bump calculations with the task of calculating the required speed changes. This is not trivial, especially when the target is constantly moving and changing direction. It might even be worse than the current situation.
Besides, we already have the 'keep at range' option, which usually avoids collisions, at least with one target at a time, not to mention the option of manually slowing down or warping within 0km.
---
DIY copying in Liekuri
20:1 mineral compression
Eve Online folding@home team |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |