Player leave freezes unit control
-
You cannot issue an order for a second of ingame time. It is necessary to prevent massive amounts of desyncs in replays. It won't be reverted, but the time in which commands can't be issued could be adjusted to see how it influences desyncs.
-
This ui pause was done intentionally? I noticed that I cannot select units using clicks or give move orders after someone leaves, until I click on a different window and click back (I usually play FA in windowed mode)
-
Yeah the second sacrificed to get rid of desyncs is great but often i find myself frozen and locked out of my ui for ~20 seconds unless i select my acu with the commander button on the right side of the screen.
-
Isn't the game basically paused during this freeze anyway?
-
The length of the pause is primarily determined by the number of units that have to be 'transferred' between players. This is a pretty costly process and can bring the SIM to a nearly total standstill. It might be worth considering inserting a global 'pause' - visible to all players - that doesn't unpause until all the work is complete.
-
I think an enforced global pause would be preferable to getting locked out of your UI for sometimes like 20 seconds (like Cascade described) until you manually fix it.
-
@Sprouto Setons is the only map where typically all share is considered standard meta. All other maps simply dispose of lost player units.
This current freeze could allow a self sacrifice of one player to ensure the fighter/bomber snipe effectiveness of another. If chances are good of getting 2 snipes after the initial hit and resource passing has been involved in speeding up the fighter producing players eco, then this is extremely exploitable and bad for fair gameplay.
There's a few other extremely important handling things that go on late game (nuke avoidance ect...) that has been adversely affected by this change. Desync problems mostly are you catering to people using wood-league computers anyway, so stop sweating their problems, just tell them to get do some part time work and get a new rig.
-
Please gain an understanding of a topic before developing a patronizing tone in your posts.
First paragraph: wrong, all competitive 2v2s and many 4v4s on 20x20 maps use full share.
Second paragraph: doesn’t happen in real game scenarios
Third paragraph: You apparently don’t know what a desync is or what causes it.
-
@FtXCommando The disdainful tone is because the actual end result the customer is receiving right now is unacceptable, and everyone is falling over themselves to make excuses due to some restrictive structure that no one can decode. The answer is if you want this problem to be fully fixed it will be, if you don't then it won't. I'm doing my best to change your mind, but it will only be as an enthusiast and a persuader, the actual ability to crack the core code open and make sensible changes is up to someone else. Why they would have any motivation not to do what I'm proposing is boggling to the mind.
In regard to desync yes I know what it is, and that problem is solved by the exact suggestion I made above by taking monetization of this platform seriously and using server side simulation, and making all coding regarding error correction and resolves between clients defunct.
-
Just throwing my hat in the rink that I've had up to about 6 seconds of unresponsiveness and average 3-5.
One second would be fine (not ideal but better than desync) but 3 seconds is pretty bad.
-
Realtime and gametime are different things. The desync lasts for 1 second in gametime. If you’re playing at -3, it’s going to take longer.
-
I will check next time I get a long desync, but I don't think these were at -3. I'm not usually at -3 unless I'm playing Seton's, which I only do once a year, on the full blood moon, after making the ritual sacrifice, of course.
My impression from the people I'm in discord with is that my loss of control/UI lasts longer than theirs. What might cause that?
-
Couldn’t tell you; there’s no reason at all for it to take longer for one person relative to another. The lockout is for a specified amount of game ticks, the time it takes to happen is entirely reliant on the speed of the simulation.
-
Again all of this revolves around the P2P model of the game being pushed all the way to the limits. Its and outdated model, and a came of this caliber should be able to fund and afford in some way server based play. Put all the client vs client bickering aside and then suddenly everything is instant, game speed improves, headaches decrease from lag flustered players, and you'll find it more attractive to players used to faster paced titles.
-
@Spy_Emanciator
Legally FAF cannot charge money so all of the funding would come from donations, which isn't realistic. -
@Cascade If FAF were ingested into a new corporate structure than its costs would come from sales of a new release title, a benefit to all. These are not real roadblocks just legalese pedantic.
-
First Paragraph: Laughable
Second Paragraph: Seen it happen. And no i'm not going to sift through 2 years of replays to find examples.
Third Paragraph: The point he is making is that everyone has to suffer for observers? The majority of people are not observing they are playing. This implementation sacrifices the many for the few, and is therefore fundamentally flawed.
If this implementation is to continue then i third the idea, that there should be a global pause for the game. Currently players are basically doing this, they pause game then unpause try avoid any UI lock.
I've had it previously where nothing is selectable at all until i've alt tabbed in and out. Its poorly implemented garbage.
Anyway, with a global pause then everyone can get there cake and eat it.
@Cascade technically FAF can charge money for the matchmaking service of the client itself. Seen it done with other titles and ancillary services.
Take a look at all of the ancillary services for Dota2 and LoL built of their respective APIs relating to stat tracking. So long as you are not charging for the game and you are not distributing content game content as part of your commercial operation.
-
If people want to test out an implementation of a "pause fix" or whatever then by all means go ahead. The current fix is not going to go away until a better one is created and determined to be a better solution.
-
@Spy_Emanciator my dude I have been a member of this forum for maybe 3 hours now and seen quite a few of your posts. You seem to have some lofty ideas about what is going on here and what is possible. You do know FAF is a free fanmade thing right? We aren't "customers" there is no "monitization" of the platform. Catering to 'wood league' players is perfectly fine because they are loving fans trying to have fun just like the rest of us.
This is like the third thread where you have suggested "oh just recode everything." Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have you ever made a game? It's engine? Jumped into the arcana of legacy spaghetti code? "Crack the core code open" LMAO.
Pretty much everything you come in here talking about would MAYBE be within the capabilities of a cushy AAA size budget, not the free time of fans manually pumping the heart of a game that is from a double dead studio 15 years on. The fact it runs is impressive enough. A few second delay so the god damn game does not desync, letting us have replays so Gyle can bring in new players is a remarkably trivial concern.
Curb your expectations my dude.
[edit] Yes now I know this was a month on necropost but god damn, Spy.
-
Admittedly, the "no actions for n ticks" solution does lower the amount of desyncs, however the user experience is indeed underisable. I would second the suggestion for a "global pause" fix instead.
