test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

server down v3 1/30/14 [Resolved!]

1161719212233

Comments

  • wildboarwildboar Member Posts: 195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    mwhitaker wrote: »
    Too bad BranFlakes is too busy cooling the hordes elsewhere to clamp this thread down...

    uh




    what??
  • captinwh0captinwh0 Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    the surver status icon has gone
    nerf.jpg]
  • cassianncassiann Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Hey here is a solution for Cryptic to avoid making people mad at them for these Server crashes.

    After they add new content to the game just keep it down for 24-48 hrs to work out all the bugs. Seeing as how they can never keep the servers up longer then they are down for that period of time anyway.
  • achatefwachatefw Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    If only I could fit that into a sig, epic laffs! well done good sir.

    I'd like to see BranFlakes make it his signature. It's probably not far off from some of the real conversations that man has had.....XD
  • shadowkoshshadowkosh Member Posts: 1,688 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Brandon, did you let lose the swarmers in the server again:D
  • karcornerkarcorner Member Posts: 294 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    um brandon hate to be a pian but can i ask since game has been off most of day can you guys extened todays free gift another day.

    Pretty sure they will do something, they always do.
  • sindreksindrek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    P.S. I'm not saying it was Iconians. But it was Iconians.

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    How about an ETA on that ETA?
  • kyuzos7kyuzos7 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    theres gonna be compensation right?

    300 qmendations for everyone and all their characters.

    or

    50 lobi for everyone and all their characters.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • morkebergmorkeberg Member Posts: 21 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Bran Flakes this is the Admiral, get to my office now you are so fired! :D
  • wildboarwildboar Member Posts: 195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    mwhitaker wrote: »
    Too bad BranFlakes is too busy cooling the hordes elsewhere to clamp this thread down...


    you someone who likes when other people are silenced if they do not discuss things you approve of?
  • devilkiller98devilkiller98 Member Posts: 80 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I wouldn't mind if they ran the scheduled maintenance now rather than tomorrow if it will resolve some of the stability issues :)
    They say time is the fire in which we burn. Right now, Captain, my time is running out. We leave so many things unfinished in our lives... I know you understand.

    Legendary Final 5 Elite Fleet Leader
    http://final-five.guildlaunch.com/
  • kaeajakaeaja Member Posts: 517 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Okay I am saying this. Cryptic this is pathetic, I understand that the event ends on February 27th, but some of us dont have the time to just sit around and wait for this crud to stablize, so what are you going to do Cryptic? If this persist to a point where we can no longer within reason obtain enough of the "Qmendations" if at all, are you going to compensate us for what your unstable server robbed us off? I am not demanding compensation right now, I am asking for what you plan on doing if these crashes take to much time away from us.
  • doffingcomradedoffingcomrade Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    phelanpk wrote: »
    Hate to **** in your corn flakes dude, but this is like saying you can ping my modem and tell me that my computer is or isn't turned on.

    If you're going to talk ****, know what you're talking about.
    That's precisely my point: If I ping your modem, I get a response, and you say your computer has crashed, I believe you. If you say that your network is broken, and I get a perfectly clean response from your modem (technically your router), I say you're lying, because there's nothing wrong with the network, your problem is that your computer is down. If your computer were truly down, I would be able to ping your modem, and then when I try to connect to the service port, I would get nothing, because your router would forward the connection attempt to your computer, and then it would disappear into the ether on the other side. This, too, I would believe. But when I get a connection REFUSED message, indicating that something there received my connection attempt, but explicitly rejected it on account of there being no program listening on that port? That is NOT a "network" issue.

    And yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about: I run an internationally distributed server network of many different configurations, and when something goes down, I need to know what the hell I'm looking at and what kind of downtime I'm seeing. I've seen a LOT of various types of failures and know exactly where I should be filing crash reports. THIS kind of failure is not "network failure".
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ondolindeondolinde Member Posts: 25 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    *sighs* I'm getting the third patch in less than 24 hours...

    But of course the 3rd patch currently downloading doesn't mean the authentication server is going to let me log in. :(
  • sarisiasevensarisiaseven Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I know what will fix this...a sonic Screwdriver!
  • pozmedley1963pozmedley1963 Member Posts: 45 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    No, it is not. You're not actually getting a timeout trying to reach the login server, that's just the behavior of the client when it fails to get a connection.

    What is ACTUALLY happening is that the client is repeatedly attempting to open a connection to the login server, and getting a Connection Refused TCP-RST, meaning nothing is listening on that port and the server is returning an explicit response to that effect.

    The client, not programmed to process this particular response, just treats it the same as any kind of failure and repeatedly tries again until its own internal clock indicates it should give up.

    This is readily apparent if you manually attempt to connect to the same IP and Port that the client is attempting to:

    ~> telnet 208.95.184.129 7422
    Trying 208.95.184.129...
    telnet: connect to address 208.95.184.129: Connection refused

    All network diagnostics indicate that the network is FINE. If it were truly a network issue, you would get very slow responses or high packetloss on pings/traceroutes. Even if it was an internal network issue, you would still get a connection from the front-end server, followed by a total absence of meaningful response from the backend (this doesn't necessarily indicate that it truly is a network issue, but it makes it POSSIBLE that this is true).

    Instead, however, we get immediate flat refusal. The network is fine. The game has crashed. Now, I'm entirely understanding of the fact that they have no QA department and rush these things out on a deadline.

    But I don't appreciate being lied to.

    I'm NOT being sarcastic. I am asking because I don't know and I really do want to.

    I read your post. I have to ask....

    Let's say it IS a network issue. Can they (CRYPTIC) on their end, prevent anyone from signing on while they try to work out the issue and in doing so, possibly...POSSIBLY give you the result you are getting that indicates all is fine? I mean, if they aren't being flooded with people signing on, wouldn't it appear okay?
  • neppakyoneppakyo Member Posts: 245 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    So I heard it was network problems? If so, why is tribble working just fine?
    Quote about STO on consoles: "Not quite as bad as No man's sky, but a close second."
  • sudonamisudonami Member Posts: 143 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I was going to make a funny comment about the server randomly thinking it's the only thing in existence in the universe and link the TNG episode when Dr. crusher gets stuck in her own mind and the ships computer defines the universe as a small sphere around the enterprise.

    can't find just a small clip of that scene though so... ... have a bacon AK
    http://www.sogoodblog.com/2009/04/15/bacon-gun/
  • thebluerabbitthebluerabbit Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    What does it say about me that reading some of the more ludicrous (subjective, I know) ravings in this thread actually lowers my blood pressure?

    You're depriving my cardiologist of a new boat, darnit!
  • summerwolfesummerwolfe Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Look out...Duck!

    Still down? Someone forgot to feed the hamster and now they're frantically trying to find a new one.

    I love STO, and really want to play the FE, but this is nuts.
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    The Hamsters have UNIONIZED!!!!
    GwaoHAD.png
  • kortaagkortaag Member Posts: 525
    edited January 2014
    No, it is not. You're not actually getting a timeout trying to reach the login server, that's just the behavior of the client when it fails to get a connection.

    What is ACTUALLY happening is that the client is repeatedly attempting to open a connection to the login server, and getting a Connection Refused TCP-RST, meaning nothing is listening on that port and the server is returning an explicit response to that effect.

    The client, not programmed to process this particular response, just treats it the same as any kind of failure and repeatedly tries again until its own internal clock indicates it should give up.

    This is readily apparent if you manually attempt to connect to the same IP and Port that the client is attempting to:

    ~> telnet 208.95.184.129 7422
    Trying 208.95.184.129...
    telnet: connect to address 208.95.184.129: Connection refused

    All network diagnostics indicate that the network is FINE. If it were truly a network issue, you would get very slow responses or high packetloss on pings/traceroutes. Even if it was an internal network issue, you would still get a connection from the front-end server, followed by a total absence of meaningful response from the backend (this doesn't necessarily indicate that it truly is a network issue, but it makes it POSSIBLE that this is true).

    Instead, however, we get immediate flat refusal. The network is fine. The game has crashed. Now, I'm entirely understanding of the fact that they have no QA department and rush these things out on a deadline.

    But I don't appreciate being lied to.

    I don't want to be a jerk but I agree with you. It's robustly obvious there's nothing wrong with reaching the game. It's also clear as day that it's the platform they moved into place.

    I'm also suspecting that their shelving of the loadout platform to tribble instead of live was something they didn't test. They tried to put it in, it failed, they thought to backburner it off to tribble and they broke it even more.

    If they had tested this on a cloned live server well in advance, it would have prevented much of this from happened.

    So please, if you're listening D'angelo, might want to jot that down in a memo forthright.
    May good management be with you.
  • truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 929 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    *reaching for the airlock release*
    wildboar wrote: »
    sad that you guys are so mad, you bought into the game, only people you should be mad at is yourself
    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • dukeskyloaferdukeskyloafer Member Posts: 101 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    No, it is not. You're not actually getting a timeout trying to reach the login server, that's just the behavior of the client when it fails to get a connection.

    What is ACTUALLY happening is that the client is repeatedly attempting to open a connection to the login server, and getting a Connection Refused TCP-RST, meaning nothing is listening on that port and the server is returning an explicit response to that effect.

    The client, not programmed to process this particular response, just treats it the same as any kind of failure and repeatedly tries again until its own internal clock indicates it should give up.

    This is readily apparent if you manually attempt to connect to the same IP and Port that the client is attempting to:

    ~> telnet 208.95.184.129 7422
    Trying 208.95.184.129...
    telnet: connect to address 208.95.184.129: Connection refused

    All network diagnostics indicate that the network is FINE. If it were truly a network issue, you would get very slow responses or high packetloss on pings/traceroutes. Even if it was an internal network issue, you would still get a connection from the front-end server, followed by a total absence of meaningful response from the backend (this doesn't necessarily indicate that it truly is a network issue, but it makes it POSSIBLE that this is true).

    Instead, however, we get immediate flat refusal. The network is fine. The game has crashed. Now, I'm entirely understanding of the fact that they have no QA department and rush these things out on a deadline.

    But I don't appreciate being lied to.

    The "network issue" may not be between the client and the login server. I could be between the login server and some other hardware. They probably shut down the login server software (but not the physical box) while they're trying to fix whatever the issue is. I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. They may have oversimplified their explanation for the benefit of the unwashed masses, but I highly doubt they are flat out lying.
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Hi Captains. We're still working on bringing STO back up. Once we have an ETA to provide I'll be sure to post it here. Thanks for the continued support!

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    In other words, this is the issue you currently face?
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • wildboarwildboar Member Posts: 195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    neppakyo wrote: »
    So I heard it was network problems? If so, why is tribble working just fine?

    I love that you all think it is cryptics fault you have bad internet and computers
  • mightybobcncmightybobcnc Member Posts: 3,354 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Yikes, I trimmed my fingernails, toenails, and took a long shower, and it's still down. Maybe I should go shave and cook a souffle.

    Joined January 2009
    Finger wrote:
    Nitpicking is a time-honored tradition of science fiction. Asking your readers not to worry about the "little things" is like asking a dog not to sniff at people's crotches. If there's something that appears to violate natural laws, then you can expect someone's going to point it out. That's just the way things are.
  • gofasternowgofasternow Member Posts: 1,390 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    P.S. I'm not saying it was Iconians. But it was Iconians.

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    But, it was, wasn't it?
  • trizeo1trizeo1 Member Posts: 472 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    P.S. I'm not saying it was Iconians. But it was Iconians.

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    Hey Bran,

    I was playing the new mission and didn't get a chance to finish it but it wasn't due to the server just had to leave promptly.

    I got to the space walk part and all i could see was black........ only seeing the structures as black outlined by orange. Is this one of the problems that are being experienced?

    I tried adjusted my video settings but nothing.

    I acutally finished it and as soon as I entered the other side it was normal again...

    Hopefully you can answer or help me with what I need to do - thanks.
  • summerwolfesummerwolfe Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    neppakyo wrote: »
    So I heard it was network problems? If so, why is tribble working just fine?

    Tribble is working? Hmm... so maybe its a database error?
This discussion has been closed.