Technical solution to eliminate desync in single-player sessions

Scrotie is right. Given the same inputs, you should expect the same output.

That being said, their client-side prediction is obviously borked. And again, client-side prediction is not needed in the first place if the server just acts as a referee.

"

Sachiru wrote:

"

qwave wrote:

SkyCore, I have continually adapted the system in order to meet the needs of Rhys_GGG.

Ultimately, if Grinding Gear Games identifies flaws, I am going to compromise or come up with new solutions. This is how software evolves. And this is how problems like desync get fixed.

At this stage, Rhys_GGG and I are disputing amongst an extremely small subset of remaining issues. If these issues are tied up, then the proposal has become feasible and their team can discuss whether it's within the budget.

Note how the tone of voice now sounds like how he is one of the developers as well. This just proves my previous point.

No, it was an experimental result which supports your hypothesis.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
— Albert Einstein

"

qwave wrote:

SkyCore, I have continually adapted the system in order to meet the needs of Rhys_GGG.

Rhys_GGG doesn't give 2 hoots about your system, have you even been reading what he has been posting. He said, and this isn't paraphrasing, that your system is unreliable and unsecure, and there are plenty of gaps in your system

"

qwave wrote:

At this stage, Rhys_GGG and I are disputing amongst an extremely small subset of remaining issues. If these issues are tied up, then the proposal has become feasible and their team can discuss whether it's within the budget.

Uh no, he is implying that you don't know what you are talking about and your system is crap

Rhys_GGG would not have made numerous replies if he didn't feel that there was some substance to the proposal. How often do the devs reply to 'desync posts'? There is obviously something different about this one.

"

qwave wrote:

There is obviously something different about this one.

Have you considered the possibility that it might have less to do with your ideas, and more to do with your attitude?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

qwave wrote:

This technique was cutting-edge for awhile, but it has really become antique for action games like PoE.

I personally think it makes the most sense. Which should be easier to predict: the movement of a monster (which would be the client's job, what it is supposed to predict), or the movement of the player (which would be the server's job, if asked to predict it)? The movement of the monster is something which the client should be able to predict reliably.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case.

I think both of these predictions will almost never be accurate enough to even matter. So why bother trying?

It is much much easier to predict hit/miss chance. I'd just go for to let the client do all the calculations by itself, server-synchronize on mob death. Server can easily predict average time that a client will need to kill a monster, so cheater checks are actually not that big of a deal.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This makes a lot of sense when you really think about it. The client is a computer program, after all; given the same inputs, the exact same calculations are made on all clients. Since you were partying together and for the most part in very similar situations (very similar inputs), wouldn't it necessarily follow that most of the time failed predictions would exist on both machines simultaneously? To be honest, I'm a little surprised there was any variance whatsoever.

Actually, desyncs are not even remotely the same experience for any given two machines. It's not like we are in the same room, our IP routing paths differ, our ping fluctuates and is not somehow synchronized etc. I really don't feel like both clients could ever see the same distorted (or desync'ed) game state.

It really looks like server predictions are a totally different beast from client predictions one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

qwave wrote:

There is obviously something different about this one.

Have you considered the possibility that it might have less to do with your ideas, and more to do with your attitude?

If you mean his stubborn attitude, you would have gained the same amount of replies in your respective thread.

"

qwave wrote:

Rhys_GGG would not have made numerous replies if he didn't feel that there was some substance to the proposal. How often do the devs reply to 'desync posts'? There is obviously something different about this one.

No the reason why he is replying is because he is calling out bullshit on what you are saying, and he wants to explain to the general public how desync works. More importantly, he wants to make sure that the public aren't being deceived about what desync is, which is precisely what you are doing

Its evident from his posts, i.e. what he is actually saying, that he is claiming that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that your idea is a load of horsebull

If you think that just because he posts in this thread thats its validation of your idea, then I have to say you have very naive attitude of how stuff works

I have supported my proposal with white papers, code, and detailed explanations to each and every query. I have adapted the solution to the meet the needs of GGG and their constraints. There is only so much I can do to help with the desync problem, and im doing my absolute best.

he replied for educative reason, not because he's convinced that your proposal has a chance to solve anything.;
And sometimes discussing about a bad idea may raise a real good idea afterwards.