Thread: .3 Second Positional Update Delay (Requesting Dev Response)

Originally Posted by Astarica

The 0.3s check itself is not a problem. The problem is that the client in this game does no real work and has no authority. In any other game, what happens is server tells client "AE coming in 2.0s", and client knows when the AE ends, and it definitely knows the position of the player at that point, so it either tells servers "Player avoided AE!" or "Player got hit" depending on what it sees. It doesn't matter how much lag there is between the client and the server, because the client knows when the AE ends, and it definitely knows where the player is. The info can be incredibly delayed but it'll still match what you observe on your screen. In FF14, the 'Player got hit' decision is made by the server. All the client does is relay the player's position at certain times. Even though the client has a better picture of the player's position, it doesn't matter.

Wouldn't that just let people make programs that tell the server a player avoided an AoE no matter where they are? There has to be some server-side validation.

It seems like this could certainly be a symptom of the 300ms delay, but it could also be due to SE's servers being so bogged down, they aren't processing the data in time. If that's the case, upping the update frequency would hurt them even more.

Originally Posted by Ceol

It seems like this could certainly be a symptom of the 300ms delay, but it could also be due to SE's servers being so bogged down, they aren't processing the data in time. If that's the case, upping the update frequency would hurt them even more.

I don't think anyone knows for sure what's causing it. I targeted the positional update because, in order to bandage the issue going from beta to release, that's what they lowered. They took it from .5 to .3 and a lot of people saw improvement. Whether it's the positional delay, their servers being bogged down, or the way in which the client communicates with the server though.. one thing remains, and that's that it hasn't been a problem in any other MMO. Not during release, not during regular play, not at all. So there has to be something others are doing that SE isn't. Can SE fix it? I don't know.. but I would like to know whether or not they're even gonna try.

This is indeed the one mmo that has huge delay for me, and I played a lot of them.

I cannot even interrupt spells unless I move as soon as i start to cast it, if it is halfway cast, it will complete. It is such a joke, as my ping to my server is:

Reply from 199.91.189.20: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=236
Reply from 199.91.189.20: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=236
Reply from 199.91.189.20: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=236
Reply from 199.91.189.20: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=236

It is actually decent, and I could abort spells instantly in other mmo with double or triple that ping.

I only played up to level 47 dungeons so far, and as bard I can get out of aoes when I move instantly, but I am not going to raid even though I maxed all combat classes.

This is because I can see how hard it is to get our of red already for other players, and I know it is not their fault, since even I have to be always on my very toes.

There is really no excuse to make a game this year with such horrible player movement tracking.

On top of that game is not even secure and bots are using all sorts of client hacks.

Why not offload position to the client more? It is not like bots will teleport better when client is more trusted. They already do whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Ceol

Wouldn't that just let people make programs that tell the server a player avoided an AoE no matter where they are? There has to be some server-side validation.

It seems like this could certainly be a symptom of the 300ms delay, but it could also be due to SE's servers being so bogged down, they aren't processing the data in time. If that's the case, upping the update frequency would hurt them even more.

You can't assume people can arbitarily hack your client, otherwise there's no hope. Sure, the client is easier to hack than the server, but if you assume everyone can just godmode their client, your game is pretty much screwed. I mean, other MMORPGs don't have people walking around being invulnerable to everything. To do something like take control your client would actually be pretty hard and likely leave a rather easy to detect trial so you just got to have faith that you can catch that kind of stuff.

Originally Posted by Ceol

Wouldn't that just let people make programs that tell the server a player avoided an AoE no matter where they are? There has to be some server-side validation.

That's why 99% of big-budget multi-player games use predictive netcode with rollback.
http://www.gabrielgambetta.com/fpm1.html

How a game like this exists in this day and age is beyond me...

To see rollback netcode in action, take a look at any FPS or a fighting game with GGPO-style netcode (this is P2P, but the concept is the same).

eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0TZdY9_XHo

One client "thinks" the opponent opponent died so the "KO" sound plays. However, the opponent did actually manage to block in time so the match "rolls back" to a previous state and continues.

The worst part about this whole thing, is that if it's causing this many problems with simple encounter mechanics (to be honest, Titan, for example, is an insanely simple and straightforward boss, yet the fight is made hard by these issues), it's going to make any truly challenging fights with extremely complex mechanics and high damage attacks, and absolute nightmare. Basically the more challenging and complex Square wants to make this game (a good thing) the more we have to worry about it actually being a BAD thing, because its hamstrung by these ridiculous lag issues.

Originally Posted by Sybreed

The worst part about this whole thing, is that if it's causing this many problems with simple encounter mechanics (to be honest, Titan, for example, is an insanely simple and straightforward boss, yet the fight is made hard by these issues), it's going to make any truly challenging fights with extremely complex mechanics and high damage attacks, and absolute nightmare.

I think you're correct..my theory is that's why some of the people doing Turn 5 Coil at the moment think it's bugged. Can't know for sure as I don't know the strat, we aren't there yet (still working on Turn 4). A guild managed to down it (awesome job Blue Garter!), but they also said they felt sorry for all who are having latency issues.

Originally Posted by ilitirit

That's why 99% of big-budget multi-player games use predictive netcode with rollback.
http://www.gabrielgambetta.com/fpm1.html

How a game like this exists in this day and age is beyond me...

To see rollback netcode in action, take a look at any FPS or a fighting game with GGPO-style netcode (this is P2P, but the concept is the same).

eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0TZdY9_XHo

One client "thinks" the opponent opponent died so the "KO" sound plays. However, the opponent did actually manage to block in time so the match "rolls back" to a previous state and continues.

In those games...players bitch about "rubber-banding". It is not as perfect as you think it is.

Originally Posted by tymora

In those games...players bitch about "rubber-banding". It is not as perfect as you think it is.

I play "those" games so I'm aware of the issues. As long as we haven't found a way around light speed and as long as people with crappy internet exist, there will always be problems. There is no "perfect" solution, but using a predictive approach with rollback is pretty much the standard because it alleviates many of the network problems that people complain about. It's unbelievable that SE didn't adopt this.

Originally Posted by ilitirit

I play "those" games so I'm aware of the issues. As long as we haven't found a way around light speed and as long as crappy internet is all that is available to most people, there will always be problems. There is no "perfect" solution, but using a predictive approach with rollback is pretty much the standard because it alleviates many of the network problems that people complain about. It's unbelievable that SE didn't adopt this.

I fixed that for you. It's not that people choose crappy internet, it's that it's their only option.