Desync and why it's fixable

"

RondaRousey wrote:

A more elegant desync solution would be to not allow players to collide with monsters. Do this by causing mobs to naturally move around you as you try to walk into them.

This is a strategic element GGG would prefer to keep in the game.

"

simnel wrote:

I don't think that's the ONE risk. The biggest risk - which in 150 or so pages of the last thread on this, you didn't successfully address - is that with more client-side decision making, a malicious client could build up a 20-second (for instance) "buffer" which would allow HC characters to escape death. You die? Hit the emergency button, and your client logs out... 20 seconds ago in server terms, or about 15 seconds before you die.

This is not the same suggestion; please actually read the OP instead of TL;DRing in a different message from a completely separate thread. There is no client trust involved in what I'm proposing whatsoever; both client and server perform the same movement/AI calculations on their respective ends, and the server uses its results, not the client's. Because the client is not performing calculation for the server — indeed, the client isn't performing damage calculations at all — there is no way to hack yourself into a death-prevention buffer.

No need to get testy. This suggestion is much less well spelled out than your last one, from a technical perspective, and considering I was one of the people who actually READ - and was interested - in your last one, you'll forgive me for reading in details from the last one from the missing details here.

That NOT being the case, I suppose, from your reply... I don't think you're proposing an answer, because there's no technical details and what you're suggesting sounds MUCH more technically complex than what you suggested last time. You can't just say "combat math wouldn't be a big deal" and wave your hands... we're not storm troopers :-)

Looks like qwave's suggestion but a bit more elegant; fewer opportunities for abuse.

Sounds good.

Unfortunately, I suspect like with qwaves suggestion, it would be too much work for single player only. Well at least I see no easy way to solve multiplayer problems.

This suggestion has less security concerns, but also eliminates less causes for desync (combat will still desync you) and from my non race, non HC, non ladder top point of view, I'd prefer qwaves suggestion.

I am strongly against any system in any game that punishes legitimate players so that it can limit the abuse potential of malicious players. I believe I can almost say everyone has died to desync or had a near death experience because of it. The problem is so prevalent that players have stopped considering using skills like cyclone because it's just begging to get your character killed.

You can not play PoE without experiencing desync.
You can not play PoE in any HC league without rapid access to /oos via macro.
You are being punished because of a poor solution to problem every time you log in.

Players shouldn't have to read guides about how to avoid getting desync or spam /oos every 30 seconds to make sure their character is where they see it. I love the work GGG is doing with PoE and I'm a patient person. These are the only two reasons I'm still playing this game. If desync had been addressed before PoE officially launched... The game though doing very well by anyone's standard, would have been a much stronger game.

As a player who doesn't even use cheats in single player games with codes built into them... I'd take more hackers around to get rid of desync. Unlike D3, PoE economy in it's primary leagues are dumped every couple months anyways. Why am I being punished so a Kaom's Heart sells for 10 exalted instead of 3?

Wouldn't client-side make memory hacking even easier?

they desync on this game is just absurd.
can't believe it still hasn't been fixed since i stopped playing.
it's what makes HC a joke and dps builds impossible to do since you can't play around randomly getting teleported into the middle of 20 monsters.

"

SponTen wrote:

Wouldn't client-side make memory hacking even easier?

Of course. It's a matter of tradeoffs and degrees.

Sorry even with my CCNA i don´t understand enough of the material (well it has little to do right now with networking right^^) to make a good post based on knowledge. But just from reading your OP scrotie, instead of moving_discrepancy/move_dsync you change that damage data will have a discrepancy if i understand that correctly?

"

simnel wrote:

You can't just say "combat math wouldn't be a big deal" and wave your hands... we're not storm troopers :-)

I meant to say "changing the current combat math system wouldn't be either wise nor necessary." I'll edit the OP.

"

syrioforel wrote:

"

SponTen wrote:

Wouldn't client-side make memory hacking even easier?

Of course. It's a matter of tradeoffs and degrees.

Please elaborate.

"

Spysong192 wrote:

Sorry even with my CCNA i don´t understand enough of the material (well it has little to do right now with networking right^^) to make a good post based on knowledge. But just from reading your OP scrotie, instead of moving_discrepancy/move_dsync you change that damage data will have a discrepancy if i understand that correctly?

The suggested additions themselves have very little to do with networking, although they definitely take networking into consideration; one way to explain it is a way to reduce (but not eliminate) the need for networked communication from server to client, by putting something which is normally a pure server-side function — monster AI/skill selection/movement decisions — on the client. Damage data would still be done server-side, as it is now.