ScrotieMcB vs Desync Dev Manifesto (Massive Wall Map of Text)

My guess is that GGG wants client/server traffic to be as minimal as possible to spend money on bandwidth and servers as little as possible. More data traffic means bigger ISP bills and bigger server parks.

This also explains very shitty download speeds from GGG server at the beginning of last patch deployment.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Maybe next time just message Chris directly, Scrotie.

i'm having trouble comprehending why you would see this as a good thing.

"

tikitaki wrote:

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Maybe next time just message Chris directly, Scrotie.

i'm having trouble comprehending why you would see this as a good thing.

I couldn't understand it, either.

Instead of using the forum, are we all supposed to spam Chris's inbox?
Or is it, keep only praise on the forum and criticism in PM/email?

Confused.

"

koppees wrote:

My guess is that GGG wants client/server traffic to be as minimal as possible to spend money on bandwidth and servers as little as possible. More data traffic means bigger ISP bills and bigger server parks.

This also explains very shitty download speeds from GGG server at the beginning of last patch deployment.

ofc

when something does not make any sense and there is no logical explanation ALWAYS check the bottom line.

what is strange tho is that most of the required information (at least that bit that is needed to make monsters appear on the screen when they should) is ALREADY being dispatched

monsters play 'on hit' animation when you HIT them - it is sent by the server
monsters drop loot in correct places - it is sent by the server
some skills target CORRECT monster location (traps) even if wildly desynced

from that last bit im more and more certain that all data that is needed to remove the 'monsters are not near to where you think they are' problem is ALREADY THERE. ggg is simply unable/unwilling to do something about that.

so even if i think petty savings are to blame the most important reason is 'economy is the most important part of this game'

sorry Chris but the data you need to fix the most irritating and repulsing feature of POE now is already there, it costs you nothing extra on backend side, there is no excuce to not do it. heck - even your sound engine knows better what is happening than player currently does!!

"

HellGauss wrote:

"

Nicholas_Steel wrote:

There's plenty of bandwith available to most users for a substantial increase in the amount of data being sent/received. It's likely mostly dialup 56kbps and 64kbps ISDN users who may be unable to play after such changes.

That is not the problem. Of course 64kbps is enough. The problem is that the server can't deal with thousands of gamers. It is not you that need bandwidth, it is the server. I think this is the reason why GGG do not implement continuous and automatic /oos in the client.

Well yeah, that's kind of a given. I wonder if increasing the communication between server/client will make it too expensive to retain the aussie server, which would be quite annoying.

"

tikitaki wrote:

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Maybe next time just message Chris directly, Scrotie.

i'm having trouble comprehending why you would see this as a good thing.

Oh, I definitely considered it. Especially on this one.

The reason I didn't do so is because I didn't feel I should expect nor demand a response from staff. They're busy people, and in general I've avoided sending them messages because I don't presume that my posts require developer response. If all that happens is some mods and/or alphas see it, and they take a few fragments of my ideas with them, that's more than good enough for me.

I've been wondering if the best solution is some kind of compromise, some kind of mass-mailing newsletter thing with a limited but relatively wide distribution of interested parties, where I wouldn't have to assume that all recipients have the time to read the articles. Probably should have done that, but figuring out who sees it would have taken time, and I was impatient.

And that means yes, I sometimes think transparency isn't that much of a good thing. I am an outspoken asshole at heart — no doubt about that — but I also passionately want PoE to succeed and I know that calling it out on its weaknesses in public might help fix those weaknesses, but also might serve as negative PR for the game. PR is a funny thing, it's not usually rational, and even if the mistakes are fixed later the spectre of negativity remains. I like to believe that PR is irrelevant at the end of the day, that it's quality of product alone that matters, that consumers are smart and will base their evaluations off of facts and not off forum hype... but sometimes I worry that I might be very, very wrong on that one. Those sometimes are when I wonder if keeping these types of articles private might be the correct move.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Multiplayer is not a choice here. Not yet, anyway. Partying is a choice, but until we have private leagues, you are still in the same game as other people. This is, actually, why I fundamentally dislike comparisons between PoE and most other ARPGs. To play 'solo' in those games is to utterly ignore what other people might be doing, to a point where you don't have to worry about their economic status, if they're cheating or not, etc.

And that did work fine. But like I said, it WAS sort of like sticking your head in the sand.

It must also be remembered that /players x only worked in Open Realm and Offline -- i.e. the 'you're not online so we don't care' options. Path of Exile does not have that. You are ALWAYS in some form of Closed Realm here.

There's no denying that GGG are painfully covetous with their code. That, combined with the fact that cosmetic microtransactions don't really mean much if you're not showing them off online, is the prime reason why such 'you're not online so we don't care' modes can never happen here.

And yes, I consider TL2 a success. But it wasn't the revelation it was meant to be.

Nowhere in my argument did I say that desync/netcode shouldn't be GGG's number one priority. I feel it should. But I do understand why they're not just saying 'fuck it, let 'em play offline.'

Not for a free to play.

Too many quotes, sir. :P

I agree with you that this game should not have an offline mode. Don't want one. I'd like it to be just as fair for solo players as it is for non-solo, and I'd like for those who don't trade to at least be able to progress through Merciless.

I did an experiment recently where I decided to run Cruel Ledge until I got a Granite so that I wouldn't die to Brutus. I need to post the results of that whole thing, and I won't derail the thread with it. I'll just mention I didn't get one in ten character levels. Some things need to be changed pretty badly, but that's not for this thread.

I just want an update. A concise, this-is-what-we're-doing-for-the-short-term-and-why type of update, not this-is-what-others-do-and-this-is-why-our-way-is-better. Quite frankly, I don't think a lot of people are convinced that the way GGG is doing things is better. It may be better from a pure mechanics standpoint, but from an actual gameplay standpoint it's really not. An update going over what is going to happen until the time of release to help solve this problem would be really nice.

I think that a lot of us are excited about act 3X, though, and what it could mean to further advancement. Maybe we'll get some more leveling areas that rock, and maps can be further increased in level. And in all fairness, I think that this game is amazing enough that I'm willing to deal with a lot of shit before just writing it off. But I'm likely to be in the minority, as a once-no-lifer who, though I now have less time to play due to commitments like kids and a house to take care of, still occasionally plays the game as such. I'm not as active on forums as I probably should be since I am one of those people who can speak plainly about issues and not insult people outright in the process, so I'll work to change that.

My name is Moxie, Grrl optional, and I'm really passionate about this game not sucking. It's what I've wanted for years.

"

lethal_papercut wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Given the consistently horrible nature of your past suggestions, I have no hope for the ones you submit in the future.

Scrotum, this is exactly how I think about 99% of your posts. Fucking horrible & usually based on inaccurate information.

Holy fuck!!!

Man!!


This is golden.


Quote to immortalize your indirect insult!

How about we not let this thread devolve into pointless personal insults? Because so far it's been an interesting discussion.

If you want to take issue with something said, take issue with something said, not the person who said it.