Spells: Channeling Fix

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because it's incredibly common to have your client share the same code with your back end.

If your client is simulating the same thing the server is simulating, you can create the feeling of near instantaneous response times by having your client guess what is about to happen with a certain degree of confidence, then show the client that is what is happening, and then the server validates that was the correct thing to have happened. And if it's wrong, you essentially roll back what the client did to what actually happened.

If you ever played Counter-Strike, for instance, it's rare but you have moments where you snipe someone with an AWP (1-shot kill sniper) and you see the blood, you see their character react as if they're dead, and then they kill you. Because client prediction showed what it thought should've happened, and its correct more than 99% of the time, but in that instance it isn't and gave you a false positive.

Unity for instance essentially bakes this into their game engine, with tags basically where you can indicate what needs to be secret and only runnable by the server and what the client should try to simulate.

IDK if this is exactly the answer, but, it's what people have been doing for ages. Most good websites do this as well, they just presume what button you're pressing worked because in reality it takes about half a second to confirm but you can feel half a second of delay, instead why not just presume it worked and move forward assuming it did because the overwhelming majority of the time it does, so that the end user feels zero disruption and instantaneous response time as far as they know.

I agree that it's not weird for server-side code artifacts to be there. My contention was more that they can't be trusted since they aren't used by the client and might be stale/ect. I think it's fairly obvious that the titanium client doesn't do spell channel prediction? Generally speaking, you would never try to predict 50/50 server-side dice rolls on your client.

I concede that it's a pretty safe bet if the magic numbers from the classic-era decompile matched up well with observed behavior on Live servers (maybe that's what nilbog meant by testing?), but the use of the decompile seems very hand-wavy in everything presented.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baugi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My contention was more that they can't be trusted since they aren't used by the client and might be stale/ect.

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[sammoHung]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are insufferable. I see a few people discussing technical details and then Loramin comes in to shit it up. Please continue, Kich, Rygar, Plonkster - interesting reads from you guys.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are insufferable. I see a few people discussing technical details and then Loramin comes in to shit it up. Please continue, Kich, Rygar, Plonkster - interesting reads from you guys.

This isn't a normal "fill it with your personal thoughts" thread.

It is a big forum thread, for people to report evidence about bugs ... not speculate (without any evidential basis).

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baugi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

Again, you (or anyone else posting non-evidence posts here) have two options:

1. Wait until Nilbog releases an update, and you'll find out ... like every other player does with every other change to the project
2. Make a nuisance of yourself in a bug thread, which DOES NOT EXIST to answer player questions about upcoming changes! It exists to collect evidence to help Nilbog improve P99.

In other words there's no "researching" what the change will be: if you're here and not posting evidence you are getting in the way of the people who do. Even this post I'm making doesn't belong ... but I'm making it out of frustration.

Nilbog has spent fifteen years of his life building a game for you to play. The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This forum is reserved for bug reporting and verification.

I'm trying to work on verification of the original bug report? Sorry if that was unclear.