LD & your group

[Jusztin]

<p>Why EQ2 kick you from your grp/raid right after you gone LD?</p><p>If you ever played with WoW or Aion for example, you stay in for some time, so you can join back your group without problem. Why not in EQ2?</p><p>It hurts raids, if someone go LD during a fight, and really annoying if you go LD in BG, you lose your token, and even get 5 min lockout.</p><p>SOE fix this</p>

[Reapicheap]

<p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.  I suspect this is because of the Station Launcher tool, from which a lack of connection state updates would be determined to be not connected and therefore require cleanup to run.</p><p>There is no fix required.  Doing things as you are asking is simply going to clutter the already clogged database with USELESS connection details for a link state that will have to be changed anyway once you reconnect.  Far easier to get yourself re-invited to the group and move on.  As for BGs, get on a more reliable network.</p>

[Jusztin]

<p>no idea about mechanish, but game should wait you till you back from LD, annoying thing, and in raid, one LD can decide win or lose.</p><p>YOu should be in for like 5 mins as a shadow</p>

[Rijacki]

<p><cite>Jusztin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>YOu should be in for like 5 mins as a shadow</p></blockquote><p>The longer you're in as a "shadow", the longer it takes before the server will allow you to log back in.</p>

[Reapicheap]

<p><cite>Jusztin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>no idea about mechanish, but game should wait you till you back from LD, annoying thing, and in raid, one LD can decide win or lose.</p><p>YOu should be in for like 5 mins as a shadow</p></blockquote><p>From the fact that you're even making the suggestion I can alreaady infer that you have no idea what the mechanics (assuming you meant mechanics when you said mechanish, because mechanish isn't a word in any language on this planet, except maybe jibberish, but I speak technobabble, not jibberish) involved might be.  To hold the state open, even as a code-related consideration, requires that the system be able to link your new connection with the old data.  While this is doable, the issues involved require that no cleanup be processed on your dead connection until you initiate a new connection.</p><p>Now, let's assume that, as in WoW, if you want to be a jerk and disconnect from a LFG group so that they can't progress together into another dungeon because they have to break group and reform (which you can't do with cross-server members) to get rid of your LD butt, cleanup isn't run on an intentional disconnect because the system doesn't know why you disconnected.  The state persists for a while and the game keeps a record of that state in case you return.  Now, multiply all that extra data across all the servers, for all the players who could possibly be simultaneously connected and might, for some unknown reason, go LD at the same time.  Ok, now, assume a nominal 3% may be more realistic.  How many is that?  Still a lot, and all that data has to be kept live for x minutes, choking up server memory, database space, processor cycles, and network resources.  This doesn't even begin to address the issues with clearing out the old data while preserving the new data and relinking states with new connections.</p><p>Now, let's assume, from the other side, that cleanup is run as soon as your status is determined to be LD.  Server resources are freed up, memory is made available, database space is cleared, and the game stays fairly stable.  However, in reality, we're currently having zoning issues that seem to be unrelated (in official explanations) to the battlegrounds and other cross-server groups.  What possible benefit would there be in making all those connections persist when there is already an undiagnosed server stability issue?</p><p>Basically put, how is this a benefit to everyone playing the game, and not just BG PvPers and raiders?  If it only fixes a minor annoyance for the general server population, then it is only a minor issue, and can be addressed ... sometime if ever.  The resources required to "fix" the issue are more intensive than the issue is annoying, and therefore it isn't even on the backburner, yet.</p><p>Honestly, I hope this made some level of sense to you.  Look past the sarcasm in the first part, cause I was feeling a bit saucy when I wrote it.</p><p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The longer you're in as a "shadow", the longer it takes before the server will allow you to log back in.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, that isn't completely true, and not for the reasons you're implying, either.  The servers are stretched thin as it is, and maintaining a shadow state would only put further hardship on them because that phantom connection, which would not prevent your second reconnection, would still count as a connection until it dropped, or was cleaned up, for whatever reason, and the system would need to devote resources to maintaining it.  This is simply not feasible because the latency and lag generated by doing so would probably crash the servers, or at least degrade their performance to an almost unplayable level.</p>

[Odys]

<p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.  I suspect this is because of the Station Launcher tool, from which a lack of connection state updates would be determined to be not connected and therefore require cleanup to run.</p><p>There is no fix required.  Doing things as you are asking is simply going to clutter the already clogged database with USELESS connection details for a link state that will have to be changed anyway once you reconnect.  Far easier to get yourself re-invited to the group and move on.  As for BGs, get on a more reliable network.</p></blockquote><p>Fan boys are hilarious, Eq2 efficiency can probably be rated 1/10 and the interface quality 3/10. The load to maintain group membership is very small compare to the one needed to monitor any figth or simply someone moving around.</p>

[Wingrider01]

<p><cite>Odys@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.  I suspect this is because of the Station Launcher tool, from which a lack of connection state updates would be determined to be not connected and therefore require cleanup to run.</p><p>There is no fix required.  Doing things as you are asking is simply going to clutter the already clogged database with USELESS connection details for a link state that will have to be changed anyway once you reconnect.  Far easier to get yourself re-invited to the group and move on.  As for BGs, get on a more reliable network.</p></blockquote><p>Fan boys are hilarious, Eq2 efficiency can probably be rated 1/10 and the interface quality 3/10. The load to maintain group membership is very small compare to the one needed to monitor any figth or simply someone moving around.</p></blockquote><p>If you hate the game so whay are you still paying them a monthly fee to allow you to access something you detest? Would suspect it dates back to exploits used in eq1.</p>

[Gladiolus]

<p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.</p></blockquote><p>Is this why it takes five minutes to stop telling me that I can't log in on the basis that I'm still logged in?</p>

[Wingrider01]

<p><cite>Gladiolus wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.</p></blockquote><p>Is this why it takes five minutes to stop telling me that I can't log in on the basis that I'm still logged in?</p></blockquote><p>Immediate drop from the game was a old exploit used by players - if they where going to lose the fight and get debt (or in eq1 a possible loss of level) they would "pull the plug" on the session to force a immediate drop and avoid the penalty.</p>

[Zaldor]

<p><cite>Odys@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For some time, in the games you mentioned, is as long as it takes the servers to determine that you're not actually connected.  Once they have, they run the cleanup routines and remove you from group.  With cross-server groups, as with WoW, this can take a while because the servers do not naturally talk to one another.  SOE simply does things faster and therefore more efficiently, at least with respect to determining connected status.  I suspect this is because of the Station Launcher tool, from which a lack of connection state updates would be determined to be not connected and therefore require cleanup to run.</p><p>There is no fix required.  Doing things as you are asking is simply going to clutter the already clogged database with USELESS connection details for a link state that will have to be changed anyway once you reconnect.  Far easier to get yourself re-invited to the group and move on.  As for BGs, get on a more reliable network.</p></blockquote><p>Fan boys are hilarious, Eq2 efficiency can probably be rated 1/10 and the interface quality 3/10. The load to maintain group membership is very small compare to the one needed to monitor any figth or simply someone moving around.</p></blockquote><p>Some people actually like the game they pay to play.  What does that make you?</p>

[Jusztin]

<p>You guys dont get the point. It is unnecessary to kick you immediately, the game should wait you few mins to return. Simply for better game experience, comfort etc.</p>

[Dasein]

<p>In a raid situation, I'd much prefer someone who is LD to be removed from the game as soon as possible, since an LD person cannot respond, and thus is more likely to trigger fail conditions or otherwise cause problems.</p>

[Reapicheap]

<p><cite>Jusztin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You guys dont get the point. It is unnecessary to kick you immediately, the game should wait you few mins to return. Simply for better game experience, comfort etc.</p></blockquote><p>You're missing the point, not us.  The point is that they DO have to cleanup the connections as soon as they drop.  Every moment they procrastinate or lag compounds the problem of latency, server lag, and database access time.  Asking them to intentionally do that will only cause more problems, not less, for you.</p><p>As has been pointed out, despite trying to do things efficiently, the servers still don't manage to react with anything resembling reliable service.  This is especially true recently, when certain servers *cough*Antonia Bayle*cough* have been down almost as much as they have been up.</p><p>And anyone who thinks I'm a SOE fanboi needs only search out my posts to see how much I criticize them for their inefficient and ineffective policies and server management.  I just like the game, not neccesarily the way it's run.  But I know networks, the protocols used by MMOs to connect players, and the way they interact with their databases.  What you're asking for isn't feasible for the servers as they are right now.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And anyone who thinks I'm a SOE fanboi needs only search out my posts to see how much I criticize them for their inefficient and ineffective policies and server management.  I just like the game, not neccesarily the way it's run.  But I know networks, the protocols used by MMOs to connect players, and the way they interact with their databases.  What you're asking for isn't feasible for the servers as they are right now.</p></blockquote><p>Assuming you know how each MMO company run their game on the server side?  Priceless.</p><p>It is not your place to say what will and will not cause either inconsequential, or substantial lag to the EQ2 servers. You do not know, you just assume, of what SOE's capacitity is, and what will or will not impact upon it.Try staying in your place, as a player, not an EQ2 Dev.I understand the point the OP is trying to make, but I do not want to see the LD duration ended. Simply because of the cons, such as negatively impacting on raid forces, and adding even more time delays to an already slow style of game (not everyone who LDs comes back right away).</p>

[Reapicheap]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And anyone who thinks I'm a SOE fanboi needs only search out my posts to see how much I criticize them for their inefficient and ineffective policies and server management.  I just like the game, not neccesarily the way it's run.  But I know networks, the protocols used by MMOs to connect players, and the way they interact with their databases.  What you're asking for isn't feasible for the servers as they are right now.</p></blockquote><p>Assuming you know how each MMO company run their game on the server side?  Priceless.</p><p>It is not your place to say what will and will not cause either inconsequential, or substantial lag to the EQ2 servers. You do not know, you just assume, of what SOE's capacitity is, and what will or will not impact upon it.Try staying in your place, as a player, not an EQ2 Dev.I understand the point the OP is trying to make, but I do not want to see the LD duration ended. Simply because of the cons, such as negatively impacting on raid forces, and adding even more time delays to an already slow style of game (not everyone who LDs comes back right away).</p></blockquote><p>Way to fail at making a point.  You criticize me, and then agree with my points, as well as those of others.  You really shine.</p><p>Now, I could go into a lot of technical details and explain to you how my best estimate of their hardware is going to be fairly spot on, but you're a bit too wrapped up in yourself, so that will fall on deaf ears.  Suffice it to say that certain behavior is characteristic of certain configurations and certain hardware profiles, which lead me to be able to state with some certainty, the assumptions I have put forward in this thread.</p><p>There is, however, the SLIGHT chance that I'm completely off-base and SOE is running a radically different profile than I think, which would make you technically correct (the best sort of correct to be) in your assertation that I don't know squat about the servers, but that possibility is so remote that I wouldn't waste times betting on those long odds.  I will, however, recognize it's possibility.</p><p>Are we done being self-important?  I really tire of self-righteousness.  It provokes my innate sense of ego.  Makes me act like you.  And that brings this portion of the discussion to off-topic-land.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p>The point was made perfectly. It would appear your comprehension is flawed.</p><p>You should respond to ideas on their merit of gameplay, not your assumptions of how SOE operates the servers EQ2 runs on, and how their software interacts with the hardware. The fact some statements we have made are common, it does not mean I agree with everything else you have posted.Glad I could be of service in placing a dent in that ego.</p>

[Reapicheap]

<p><cite>Avirodar@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You should respond to ideas on their merit of gameplay, not your assumptions of how SOE operates the servers EQ2 runs on, and how their software interacts with the hardware.</p></blockquote><p>That would be your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it, however, there are no gameplay considerations here.  The sheer technical issues to overcome, unless directly contradicted by one of the devs themselves, make this issues unworthy of consideration in the face of more pressing problems.</p><p>That the player may be inconvenienced by a LD state is a petty annoyance at best.  There are virtually no reasons to devote time and money to the issue when there are many more important and technically feasible problems that can be solved for the devs to work on.  Should, in the span of time, those problems be solved adequitely that this problem becomes more important, then I can see them devoting resources to the issue, and not realistically before.</p><p>That I can back it up with technical expertise and not just witless banter only supports my position, which is a claim to wihich you cannot lay.  Out of pure gameplay consideration, which you suggest as being the holy grail of considerations for a MMO, this is a non-issue with which players can simply learn to deal.</p>

[Avirodar]

<p><cite>Reapicheap@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Avirodar@Befallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You should respond to ideas on their merit of gameplay, not your assumptions of how SOE operates the servers EQ2 runs on, and how their software interacts with the hardware.</p></blockquote><p>That would be your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it, however, there are no gameplay considerations here.  The sheer technical issues to overcome, unless directly contradicted by one of the devs themselves, make this issues unworthy of consideration in the face of more pressing problems.</p><p>That the player may be inconvenienced by a LD state is a petty annoyance at best.  There are virtually no reasons to devote time and money to the issue when there are many more important and technically feasible problems that can be solved for the devs to work on.  Should, in the span of time, those problems be solved adequitely that this problem becomes more important, then I can see them devoting resources to the issue, and not realistically before.</p><p>That I can back it up with technical expertise and not just witless banter only supports my position, which is a claim to wihich you cannot lay.  Out of pure gameplay consideration, which you suggest as being the holy grail of considerations for a MMO, this is a non-issue with which players can simply learn to deal.</p></blockquote><p>Sheer technical issues?  Wow.  For someone who alludes to being an expert guru of MMO operations, you sure show a lack of knowledge about what EQ2 already does. EQ2 already provides what the OP asks for, it just lasts a few seconds, where the OP wants a few minutes. Nothing would need to be added, just extended, to cater the OPs request.EQ2 should support the capacity of having a volume of players connected. If this game ever relied on booting LD players as quick as it could to cut back on lag, there are much bigger fish to fry than speeding up the LD process.I disagree with the OP's request. I do not see the current setup regarding dealing with LD as being bad.  I do however, find it humerous that some people come to these forums acting as if they know everything about how MMOs function behind the scene, and are so up themselves they believe only a Dev can say they are wrong.Players should never have to base their ideas on wether or not you (Reapicheap) think it will, or will not cause lag. They should base their ideas on what they think will add to the playing experience and user end functionality of EQ2, and leave the technical aspect to the Dev team to decide upon.Have to love the back-seat drivers.</p>

[Seidhkona]

<p><cite>Jusztin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>no idea about mechanish, but game should wait you till you back from LD, annoying thing, and in raid, one LD can decide win or lose.</p><p>YOu should be in for like 5 mins as a shadow</p></blockquote><p>Padawan, I will tell you what one raid leader said to me: "Sell your [deleted] farm, move into a city, and get real [bleeping] internet!" (I was on a satellite modem at the time, eventually cable came to the part of East Jesus where my farm is, and life and connectivity are sooo much better now!)</p><p>The connectivity issue of you going LD is probably on your end. If you don't want to be dropped, then you should look into improving your computer, your internet connection, your router and so on. It's not up to SOE to hold your place in the raid when you go walkabout.</p><p>When I was still on the satellite modem, there were a number of things I did that helped with my connectivity and computer response. Simply using CCleaner to get rid of junk on the hard drive, periodic defrag, and moving EQ2's game files to a different physical hard drive than the one that hosts the operating system all helped a lot. Turn off all chat, messaging, torrents, Skype, and so on. Don't stream music or video while the game is running. Improve your bandwidth every way you can.</p>

[Landiin]

The coding behind LDing is flawed. If you go LD while in a group/raid, you can not be healed, cured or crapped on. This is a flawed system. Until you are dropped form the group you should be able to heal and cure that person. I mean if the LD only last 5 sec you can't do crap to that person. IMO as long as the person is in the group you should be able to cure and heal them until they are dropped.

[Reapicheap]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>The coding behind LDing is flawed. If you go LD while in a group/raid, you can not be healed, cured or crapped on. This is a flawed system. Until you are dropped form the group you should be able to heal and cure that person. I mean if the LD only last 5 sec you can't do crap to that person. IMO as long as the person is in the group you should be able to cure and heal them until they are dropped.</blockquote><p>Flip side:  As long as you're LD and still in a group involved in PVP, you can be slaughtered mercilessly without the chance to fight back or even know you're dead until you are. and log back in as a corspe with rez sickness.  IMO that's a fair trade off to what you propose.  As long as a person is in a group, they're fair game to be attacked without consideration for whether or not they're actually there.</p><p>Or... they can instantly become a non-target when they go LD and be re-invited when they reconnect.</p>

[Wingrider01]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>The coding behind LDing is flawed. If you go LD while in a group/raid, you can not be healed, cured or crapped on. This is a flawed system. Until you are dropped form the group you should be able to heal and cure that person. I mean if the LD only last 5 sec you can't do crap to that person. IMO as long as the person is in the group you should be able to cure and heal them until they are dropped.</blockquote><p>Doubt the code is flawed, just the way you feel it is handled.</p>