Ryzom

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:26 pm**

danmit wrote:Reading comprehension is your friend.

First, from one post we have:
During today's patch, our team had to perform a database rollback in order to deal with character save problems, which occured close before we took the servers down for the patch.

Note the timeframe here: character save problem BEFORE the patch. Database rollback DURING the patch.

Then Lawrence explains what the problem was: some characters saved, others didn't. He doesn't say anything other than that there was a save character problem that had bad effects (ie, duping) which from the other post happened BEFORE the patch. Rollback DURING the patch, get it? So, not even close to mutually contradictory, nor even implying "guilt" to one side or the other about why a rollback happened. In fact, it's buggy code (dev's fault) leads to player abude (players fault), which leads to a rollback.

It's pretty obvious given the info you get in those 2 posts that the likely chain of events looked like:
(1) there was a bug in the save character code
(2) people could use it when they knew the server was going down
(3) people knew the server was going down for a patch and duped stuff
(4) the character database was rolled back a bit so that the people who exploited that bug wouldn't get the benefits of their duping, which of course hurts everyone.
Anyone who is reading what they actually said, thinks in a sequential cause and effect manner, and has any experience in these games can figure that out.

And how does that crystal-clear quote about a side effect from Lawrence fits your explanation?:

lawrence wrote:Some characters didn't save, while others did. That was the problem we had. Of course a side-effect of this problem was that some things could be exploited. Quite an ugly side-effect indeed... but as previously stated, the character save system has been revised to make sure it won't happen again.

In this quote he states clearly that gametime loss allready had occured and exploit had taken place during this time of a system failure (or however the knowing call it). But his wording doesnt sound half as benefitting to the company than "We had to erase some of youre gametime because of an exploit."

I am looking forward to the next ten posters who seem to have registered just to add to the defense - at least thats what their post count (1 in the case of danmit - this is his very first post here) tells me.....

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:58 pm**

Sigh for those that don't have a clue this is what happened...i wasn't in-game at the time and i could still figure it out from simple deduction:

There was a bug in the system that wouldn't let some characters save when they LOGGED OUT OF THE GAME...aka they would be able to give items to a person that did save therefore duping it as they would get the item back when they relogged. Very simple really. This caused the duping problem therefore causing the rollback.

This was because of a dev error. The simple answer that you guys are looking for is the two guys said a similar thing in a different way. Not too hard to figure out.

The quotes from the two posters say enough to convince me, its not very hard to figure out id say, but what do i know

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:44 pm**

Ayne, re-read what he said. Not what you THINK he said given your presuppositions, but what he actually said. Without the context of the thread that quote was in and given just that quote, it doesn't mean anything near what you think it does on it's face.

He never said the character rollback was the save problem, you're making that connection. He said we had X problem, that lead to a bad exploit. He didn't say X problem WAS the rollback, he said in effect that it caused the rollback. Cereste said they ACTIVELY rolled back, not rolled back due to a bug, so the two statements are not contradictory or imcompatiable. It boils down to: we had a bug issue(lawrence), so we actively restored the character back-ups (cereste).

Now, maybe if we had a link to where Lawrence said that, and it was in direct answer to a "what happened" question (NOT a "why did you rollback" one, btw), then you'd have a better claim to what you think he said. The point is you're twisting that statement around to mean something it clearly doesn't.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:13 pm**

Can you believe that people actually dont understand why they get burnt when they spill coffee on themselves?

They even go so far as to sue the company who gave them the hot coffee.

And to make matters worse ... some bumble heads actually said the company was wrong because they didnt tell the bimbo that it was hot on the side of the cup

I mean ... would she have sued them for printing it on the side and then when she tried to read it she dumped it on her lap?

Sorry but this has gotten way to enflamed to take seriously anymore.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:18 pm**

*blink*

I feel like I'm back in lit class again and we're discussing our interpretations of Twain or something...

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:59 pm**

danmit wrote:Without the context of the thread that quote was in and given just that quote, it doesn't mean anything near what you think it does on it's face..

the thread including the first quote was 3 posts long - three post all by lawrence

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:00 pm**

stygeon wrote: Sorry but this has gotten way to enflamed to take seriously anymore.

then dont do it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:01 pm**

klanesh wrote:*blink*I feel like I'm back in lit class again and we're discussing our interpretations of Twain or something...

thats the difference between literature and actions. The first can be interpreted, the second only explained.

PS: Another 1post-member bolstering the defence.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:39 pm**

lupine04 wrote:Among some of us States-siders, yes.. unfortunately there are a number of people (called the Vocal Minority, and accurately so, above), who seem to believe that with every purchase of a MMO comes a complimentary Soap Box or Mountain Top to perch upon and shout TRAVESTY! every time they feel personally wronged by something in the game. They often begin to make demands of the company and make heavy use of the words "us", "we" and other such inclusionary words to make it seem like the majority of the game population agrees with them. Some of these same individuals will even go so far as to accuse those of us who *don't* see some major injustice in a given issue of "rolling over and taking it".

I've only seen one, maybe two threads so far showing this behavior for SoR.. that's pretty mild compared to other games.

So that's why my box came with a 5' by 5' crate of dirt and a snow machine...my own snow-covered peak!!!!

Kidding. Some people get wound up about MMO problems (small and large), some don't. I'm easygoing...I put up with Star Wars Galaxies for a year, so this game is running great by comparison.

Posted: **Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:14 pm**

I think this whole thing is being inflamed into something much more than it is.
Perspective: This is a game, we play the game for fun. $14.95/month equals aproximately .50 per day. Loss of a couple hours playtime? Pennies only.

Annoying? Yes. Earth Shattering? No.

I have been playing AE aka Horizons since release, still do. They have problems, but they are working on them. Ryzom is a cool game, they will have problems, and they will work them out too.

Total impact on real life? Only what you let it affect. If you get that upset, you can always just turn off the power button, pop in a good DVD or read a good book.

But all this arguing and flaming and haranguing is simply silly.

Ryzom

Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.

Re: Cerest and crew, the real issue.