Why the netcode issue exists, and why it cannot be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinth

Close proximity (or low amount of hops) to the data servers. In low-latency scenarios, the server live-state model is superior in all regards to client live-state.

---

Hmm sounds like a certain small country that may or may not have produced the game benefits greatly while we eat all teh plumes. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonC

Hmm sounds like a certain small country that may or may not have produced the game benefits greatly while we eat all teh plumes. :p

---

Yes, it would also explain the lack of foresight into the potential gravity of the issue as the majority (if not all) of the QA testing was performed on said small country :)

SE Dev 1 : "Lets make primal battles twitch-sensitive. Toss out mob AOEs they have to dodge."
SE Dev 2 : "Yes, but doesn't our server-based action logic make it likely players will be caught in them?"
SE Dev 1 : "Not if they have a good connection."
SE Dev 2 : "And if they don't?"
SE Dev 1 : "Blame their ISP. Or get them to move to Canada."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlmaMalma

SE Dev 1 : "Lets make primal battles twitch-sensitive. Toss out mob AOEs they have to dodge."
SE Dev 2 : "Yes, but doesn't our server-based action logic make it likely players will be caught in them?"
SE Dev 1 : "Not if they have a good connection."
SE Dev 2 : "And if they don't?"
SE Dev 1 : "Blame their ISP. Or get them to move to Canada."

---

I've never seen a more fitting signature relating to a post. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinth

Yes, it would also explain the lack of foresight into the potential gravity of the issue as the majority (if not all) of the QA testing was performed on said small country :)

---

This doesn't make sense to me.

QA testing could easily be done by Square Enix Headquarters USA, which is located in California, and more than likely was. Granted, this is California to Japan up until the later Beta testing. However I wouldn't go so far as to presume that they did not test, at least in the mid stages, the connection quality of the netcode outside of region.

How their connections would be solid while others are having difficulties, I cannot know. Perhaps this issue did not articulate itself gravely until stress tests began, which at that point it would be too late. But this is all just speculation on my end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinth

Answers

---

Thank you for these answers. :)

(no more double-posts!)

I suspected something was off, but not at this magnitude. Much like Sunarie, I didn't know the technical side, though. At least now I can put words on it. That's a mild consolation, even if it somehow fails to offset my whole disappointment over this realisation, but… Oh well, at least I'm left with an interesting topic to further dig into in my spare time. I suppose we'll play nothing but server live-state games a decade or two from now!

Who said SE isn't focused on the future? :rolleyes: Though, admittedly, perhaps a bit too much for their own sake…

______
EDIT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

This doesn't make sense to me.

QA testing could easily be done by Square Enix Headquarters USA, which is located in California, and more than likely was. Granted, this is California to Japan up until the later Beta testing. However I wouldn't go so far as to presume that they did not test, at least in the mid stages, the connection quality of the netcode outside of region.

How their connections would be solid while others are having difficulties, I cannot know. Perhaps this issue did not articulate itself gravely until stress tests began, which at that point it would be too late. But this is all just speculation on my end.

---

These are fair questions, especially after Phil Rogers (SE's NA/EU CEO) stated that teams from all around the world worked on ARR's development.

Also, they involved players fairly early in the process (since alpha testing), and the issue was mentioned to SE repeatedly (I only arrived during beta 3 in june, I don't know first-hand about before though, but it was clearly a topic when I got hands-on the game). At the time they blamed "server-side checks that would be disabled come release"; yet very late during the beta process they did offset the whole red zone by several hundreds milliseconds (making it appear earlier than previously), as it used to be much more penalising in the beta, downright impossible to dodge. At the same time it somehow broke immersion though —the obvious "dodge the red zone rather than the actual spell animation", which somehow seems ridiculous that you have to dodge a UI indicator but still can dance in the subsequent fire without concerns…

The other factor, is that instanced events like primals and coil are going to be at the moment full of players. That'll be more load on the servers that host them. In 2.1 when folks emigrate onto Extreme, empty Titan (Hard) servers will be whizzing along like mad things compared to now. Unless the Extreme versions are hosted on the same servers... that'll be fun for all.

This brings one question to my mind. I live in the UK and i do notice a small delay but i have spent time on my connection making sure it is a quality connection as i used to play FPS at competition level. Would i be correct in presuming that people with a less than optimal connection would suffer more?

When i say less than optimal i mean suffering from back ground noise on phone lines, minor faults that would not be really noticeable with the Client live state.
The reason i ask is that if these things can effect it then there is a probably chance that people who may have noticed problems in other games might be able to improve their in game experience.

Also, the more things the client is put in control of the easier it is to hack and cheat.

I don't have an issue because I am an IT Guru/ IT Generalist Jack of all trades and my PC is a Beast, and my ping to the datacenter is 30-40 ms. I don't lag at all and have about 2500$ in my gaming PC.

There are so many variables involved, that explaining why some people have issues and some don't is difficult. It could be PS3 + Latency to server, it could be the PC is old and slow and not up to spec to overcome the issue.

Bottom line though it's latency to the server and user reflexes. Some people are just faster than others and move out of it super quick often times before it's even visble.

SE is so hard core against preventing hacks that they end up hurting their game design more than their helping it. A full server Side MMO is just a bad Idea for a global targetted game unless your going to have data centers all over the place geographically.

Until Quantum Entanglement is harnessed for Data Teleportation and used to create a <5ms latency global world wide internet, it's a bad idea.

IMO user experience should always come first before thinking about ways to prevent hackers. I imagine their whole mindset when they make a game like this is "How can we design the fight mechanics so hackers can't cheat by hacking how much dmg they did, where their xyz was, whether they were in an aoe, etc etc etc" instead of going "How will this perform for users, will latency be an issue in dodging these mechanics" etc.

Personally I'd rather have a game full of cheaters I can play, than a game that's full of them anyways that I can't play.

Hackers will always find a way to hack a game, it's moore's law. No matter how secure you make something, they will find a way. Just give up on it. Secure the obvious things like player accounts, assets, mining nodes, crafting etc and make the fights respond fluidly.