These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Issues, Workarounds & Localization

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The new launcher and the web server issues on the 21st of May: FAQ and update thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#781 - 2013-06-24 14:18:07 UTC
Seth Toralen wrote:
Assming CCP still follows this forum....

In followup to my Error 324 issues with all of EVE's websites, I have submitted a new bug report. As a quick reminder, this error prevents me from logging into account management, API management, and using the new launcher. This new bug report contains every bit of network diagnostics I could think to include. Since my problems connecting to the login pages are obviously somewhere in the interwebs, I have included tests that mostly focus on tracing communication from my PC to CCP's servers.

My tests include an ipconfig, a tracert to login.eveonline, a pathping to login.eveonline, and a netstat. All of this juicy data is in bug report 163663. It's probably enough data about my network to reveal vulnerable ports and certainly where I live too... whatever. Just use it to fix problems. I really hope it helps.

This is excellent information. We've been completely stumped as to how or why this is happening, and detailed information such as this will undoubtedly help us. Thank you very much.
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#782 - 2013-06-24 14:38:25 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:

I would still like to know what CCP Atropos plan is, but at this point I know it either won't exist or will be bad for us.



This doesn't surprise me in the least.

I hate saying it, but the reduced functionality of this new launcher has become a major pain in my backside. What took me less than 10 minutes for updates on Planetary Interaction now takes me 35 minutes because of the launcher, which is why I've refused to use it.

I'll continue using the "\bin\ExeFile.exe" solution for my all my toons and their PI and the launcher for patching only.

Until CCP and it's minions start playing their own game like it was meant to be played (like we're playing it) then they won't see the issues we're faced with on an almost daily basis.

I really want to know what your flow is, because 35 minutes to reset PI and switch accounts is most definitely not working as intended. I'll hold my hand up and say the flow isn't great, but it sounds like you're running into some bug if it's taking you that long.
Zeb DaMadMan2
Duckling System
#783 - 2013-06-24 17:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zeb DaMadMan2
CCP Atropos wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
move the topic and hope people forget how **** the launcher actually is??

Yeah, I was thinking the same.

CCP mentioned that they would be happy when people stopped posting how bad the launcher was. this seems to help them achieve their goal...hide the thread so no one can find it LOL.

Priceless...

Rather that it was a longterm stickied thread in General Discussion.


That got deleted/moved/renamed again I might say... Seriously cut the bullshit and return a proper splash screen, all your doing is pissing people off further.

This is a splashscreen..
http://tagn.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/retsplashscreen.jpg

This is not..
http://i.imgur.com/aXaEopX.jpg

Where the **** is guard? I want his answer as to why this isn't being corrected.

P.S. this isn't general discussion.

"As soon as we stop asking about the launcher design, CCP will assume we already love it.

We won't." - Eve Community
Zeb DaMadMan2
Duckling System
#784 - 2013-06-24 17:50:28 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:

I would still like to know what CCP Atropos plan is, but at this point I know it either won't exist or will be bad for us.



This doesn't surprise me in the least.

I hate saying it, but the reduced functionality of this new launcher has become a major pain in my backside. What took me less than 10 minutes for updates on Planetary Interaction now takes me 35 minutes because of the launcher, which is why I've refused to use it.

I'll continue using the "\bin\ExeFile.exe" solution for my all my toons and their PI and the launcher for patching only.

Until CCP and it's minions start playing their own game like it was meant to be played (like we're playing it) then they won't see the issues we're faced with on an almost daily basis.

I really want to know what your flow is, because 35 minutes to reset PI and switch accounts is most definitely not working as intended. I'll hold my hand up and say the flow isn't great, but it sounds like you're running into some bug if it's taking you that long.


I can answer that one...
ISboxer -
Start team... (30 seconds later, all clients launched)
Repeater - Enter in password...
Bam, everybody is logged in.

Now?
Manually log in each account to launch a client requiring alot more micromanagement as well as memory trying to remember which account, character, and password are hooked to each other.

Alot more tedious for something trivial.

"As soon as we stop asking about the launcher design, CCP will assume we already love it.

We won't." - Eve Community
Seth Toralen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#785 - 2013-06-24 18:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Seth Toralen
CCP Atropos wrote:
Seth Toralen wrote:
Assming CCP still follows this forum....

In followup to my Error 324 issues with all of EVE's websites, I have submitted a new bug report. As a quick reminder, this error prevents me from logging into account management, API management, and using the new launcher. This new bug report contains every bit of network diagnostics I could think to include. Since my problems connecting to the login pages are obviously somewhere in the interwebs, I have included tests that mostly focus on tracing communication from my PC to CCP's servers.

My tests include an ipconfig, a tracert to login.eveonline, a pathping to login.eveonline, and a netstat. All of this juicy data is in bug report 163663. It's probably enough data about my network to reveal vulnerable ports and certainly where I live too... whatever. Just use it to fix problems. I really hope it helps.

This is excellent information. We've been completely stumped as to how or why this is happening, and detailed information such as this will undoubtedly help us. Thank you very much.


By all means, then please let me know if there is any other diagnostics I can run for you. I want this figured out and fixed as much as you guys do.

For example, I think it would be very helpful if I could run traces for you of the communication specifically when I am trying to access those login pages. But I do not know of a way to trace exactly what is happening specifically at the login page. If you guys know of a way I can provide more details about what sort of communication is going on then, it might be helpful.

Also, running new tests this morning, I found that running a tracert to community.eveonline (or login or secure) follows a slightly different behavior than forums.eveonline (the only place I CAN still login). It is a minor, and likely unimportant difference with how CCP's front server (83.245.126.202) directs my request. Still how can I most effectively point it out to you guys? Just appending new information the the text file I included with the latest (and already processed) bug report?
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#786 - 2013-06-24 19:22:36 UTC
We've had some internal discussion and thrown a few theories around relating to corrupted winsocks drivers and MTU packet sizes. It would be great if you could undertake steps 1 and 2 in this article. Since we're not entirely sure what the cause it, I wouldn't recommend step 3 at this time.

As for the winsocks theory, this Google thread details the same problem under Chrome, and how fixing the winsock drivers resolved the issue for some people.

Again, since this is all just theory, I wouldn't recommend you do anything crazy at this time.
Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#787 - 2013-06-24 19:29:12 UTC
I'm posting in this topic because I am constantly experiencing launcher failures.
The scenario is always the same:
1. Client/launcher update is released. (At this moment the launcher is operational)
2. I download an update (usually via the client itself, you know, the file that says it's a patch but in fact isn't, being a file that is supposed to initiate the actual download through the launcher).
3. The launcher starts showing the "Downloading Launcher Update" window
4. Once the download is complete - the window disappears. At this moment the launcher is already dead, and by dead I mean that I won't start (AT ALL). If I start the launcher at this point, I get the "Dowloading Launcher Update" window, for more details on what happens later, go to point 3.
5. I launch the repair tool, which downloads the actual patch and updates the client to a working state (thank God...). Launcher remains dead.

The only method of restoring the launcher is to reinstall an earlier version.

This has happened numerous times since the new launcher was introduced. Every single time - this was the effect.

Now, gentlemen, from my perspective, the new launcher is a disaster and the fact that you HAVE TO use it to patch the client (or the repair tool, but that's another story) is ridiculous. Please also note, that the fact that running the repair tool doesn't fix the launcher, doesn't improve the customer experience in this area.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#788 - 2013-06-24 19:51:26 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:


Finally, the ability to run multiple accounts simultaneously; I won't say that it's perfect, but it is possible, although certainly clunky. As I stated above, in this post, we're working on improving the experience for those who want to login and play multiple characters, but it's likely to be deployed in two phases, as we consolidate things. Once we can publish our concepts and gather full feedback, I want you to help me test this on Singularity.




I did test the launcher on sisi, I told you it wasn't ready, and you stated to me that it was fine, cant be arsed to dig up the quotes, but im sure you remember.
anyhow moving forward, I would like to know the following.

1. why should I actually believe you will listen to valid concerns raise this time round while this new new new launcher is on sisi?

2. how long is the launcher bypass staying? lets be honest, I hate this launcher/patch tool, its everything that's wrong with bad design, fluff over function.

3. what are the two parts your working on?

4. what things are you consolidating?

5. why are you not asking multiboxer's now what they want from a launcher regarding functionality, rather than just doing what ever it is you plan to do? this is a pretty simple thing to do, sent out a survey to everyone with more than 3 accounts registered to anyone email address

my concerns here are that you are going with the 'settings on the cloud' idea which will just make multiboxing more needlessly complex. ( go log in 10 accounts at once and try to swap alts on them. while having each account with different settings and then you will see what we face)

OMG when can i get a pic here
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#789 - 2013-06-24 20:35:25 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Atropos wrote:


Finally, the ability to run multiple accounts simultaneously; I won't say that it's perfect, but it is possible, although certainly clunky. As I stated above, in this post, we're working on improving the experience for those who want to login and play multiple characters, but it's likely to be deployed in two phases, as we consolidate things. Once we can publish our concepts and gather full feedback, I want you to help me test this on Singularity.




I did test the launcher on sisi, I told you it wasn't ready, and you stated to me that it was fine, cant be arsed to dig up the quotes, but im sure you remember.
anyhow moving forward, I would like to know the following.

I was replying to Alphea Abbra, with that previous response, although I've no doubt covered some of your own, oft repeated concerns Smile
Smoking Blunts wrote:

1. why should I actually believe you will listen to valid concerns raise this time round while this new new new launcher is on sisi?

I can't control what you believe regarding the EVE Launcher. I've told you my intent and I'll leave it up to you and the rest of the player base to determine whether you want to believe it or not.
Smoking Blunts wrote:

2. how long is the launcher bypass staying? lets be honest, I hate this launcher/patch tool, its everything that's wrong with bad design, fluff over function.

I've already said many, many times, there's no set date for it. When we've put in support for multi account and multi client play styles, then we'll reassess.
Smoking Blunts wrote:

3. what are the two parts your working on?

Multi account support, such as multiple simultaneous logged in accounts. This is aimed at those with many accounts who don't care about unique settings and are just happy to play from a single installation. The second is what would currently be known as multi client support. This involves changes to the EVE Client and removing of the need for junctioned installs and other exotic multi-installation workarounds.
Smoking Blunts wrote:

4. what things are you consolidating?

See above.
Smoking Blunts wrote:

5. why are you not asking multiboxer's now what they want from a launcher regarding functionality, rather than just doing what ever it is you plan to do? this is a pretty simple thing to do, sent out a survey to everyone with more than 3 accounts registered to anyone email address

We are actually doing this.
Smoking Blunts wrote:

my concerns here are that you are going with the 'settings on the cloud' idea which will just make multiboxing more needlessly complex. ( go log in 10 accounts at once and try to swap alts on them. while having each account with different settings and then you will see what we face)

I appreciate the continued fervour of your feedback regarding the Launcher, but If every idle thought I express is going to be examined, criticised, evaluated and dissected before it's become an actualised design and not more than a fleeting thought, I'll simply not bother discussing them here. As a developer, we're often lambasted for not idly speculating on the forums, however in this instance it might simply save us both some trouble.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#790 - 2013-06-24 20:46:44 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:


The second is what would currently be known as multi client support. This involves changes to the EVE Client and removing of the need for junctioned installs and other exotic multi-installation workarounds.



this sounds intresting. and while you don't need to share any passing thoughts you have about this, it is something that more information would be appreciated.

the way I run currently eve is with 8 different installs, no junctions. this is mostly down to it being faster for me just to copy a working client into a broken client folder than to use the repair tool. as well as the fact that it allows logging in each account to be a 3 step process.

OMG when can i get a pic here
Seth Toralen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#791 - 2013-06-24 23:09:42 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:
We've had some internal discussion and thrown a few theories around relating to corrupted winsocks drivers and MTU packet sizes. It would be great if you could undertake steps 1 and 2 in this article. Since we're not entirely sure what the cause it, I wouldn't recommend step 3 at this time.

As for the winsocks theory, this Google thread details the same problem under Chrome, and how fixing the winsock drivers resolved the issue for some people.

Again, since this is all just theory, I wouldn't recommend you do anything crazy at this time.


Here is what I found:

My MTU is set to the ethernet default of 1500 (1472 byte packets with 28 byte headers). Nothing strange there. I'll put the full netsh information at the end of this post.

Pinging google.com: It's a little weird. At first, packets won't go through with the default packet size of 1472 bytes. I had to lower the packet size to 548 for replies to begin flowing. However, after getting replies at 548, I could then send packets of 1472 bytes (MTU 1500) or higher. I tried packets as large as 10000 bytes and received replies. I tried new instances of cmd prompt, and the results were somewhat inconsistent. I could always send packets of 548 bytes or lower, but only sometimes was I able to send larger packets (and when larger, there was no practical limit). There seems to be nothing I can do to trigger the larger packets working. It never works the first time. I really can't make any sense of it. It almost seemed like short time windows were opening in which I could send larger packets (the ability would stop sometime later). Sometimes the 'packet needs to be fragmented' message would appear but packets would still send with replies. Very strange indeed....

Pinging login.eveonline.com: Normal ping (ping login.eveonline.com) worked fine. Packet size 1472 bytes would not go through (MTU 1500). Packets of size 548 or lower would always go through (just like google). I could never get packets larger than 548 packets to send. I even managed to catch a window where google.com was accepting packets of 1472 bytes and 10000 bytes, but login.eveonline.com was still not accepting packets above 548. The test in this windows were done in the same cmd instance. Google accepted large packets before and after the login.eveonline.com packets failed.

Pinging community.eveonline.com and secure.eveonline.com: exact same behavior as login.eveonline.com

Pinging forums.eveonline.com: same behavior. This may be important since this is the one site I can still login.

Summary: My network / ISP seems to be doing interesting things with packets larger than 548. CCP websites cannot reply to any packets larger than 548. Google (and I'd expect other sites) seems to sometimes accept larger packets, but it is very inconsistent. This is interesting since my MTU is set to the default 1500. I hope someone else can make more sense of all of this. I'm trying to be as thorough with you guys as possible since you've had trouble replicating the issue.


Here is my full netsh interface ipv4 show subinterfaces:

MTU MediaSenseState Bytes In Bytes Out Interface
------ --------------- --------- --------- -------------
4294967295 1 0 2530624 Loopback Pseudo-Interface 1
1500 5 0 0 Wireless Network Connection
1500 1 19479868419 2149006945 Local Area Connection
1500 5 0 2571520 Wireless Network Connection 2
1500 1 0 3619091 VirtualBox Host-Only Network
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#792 - 2013-06-24 23:12:52 UTC
Thank you so much for this information. I'll add it all to the defect and talk to our Ops guys. It is very strange that you're still able to access the forums, since it's all using the same load balancing and certificates, as far as I'm aware.
Seth Toralen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#793 - 2013-06-24 23:18:14 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:
Thank you so much for this information. I'll add it all to the defect and talk to our Ops guys. It is very strange that you're still able to access the forums, since it's all using the same load balancing and certificates, as far as I'm aware.


I will point out that I don't believe that the forums were incorporated into the unified login system. I am not sure what changes might have been made to the other login pages that weren't made to the forums (if any).
Par'Gellen
#794 - 2013-06-24 23:19:50 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

5. why are you not asking multiboxer's now what they want from a launcher regarding functionality, rather than just doing what ever it is you plan to do? this is a pretty simple thing to do, sent out a survey to everyone with more than 3 accounts registered to anyone email address

We are actually doing this.

I am waiting for my email to this survey you speak of. I would LOVE to detail what I need for running multiple accounts and actually have someone care what I say. I would also LOVE to help with testing the new launchers and be more than an ignored voice on the forums.

"To err is human", but it shouldn't be the company motto...
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#795 - 2013-06-24 23:43:41 UTC
Seth Toralen wrote:
CCP Atropos wrote:
Thank you so much for this information. I'll add it all to the defect and talk to our Ops guys. It is very strange that you're still able to access the forums, since it's all using the same load balancing and certificates, as far as I'm aware.


I will point out that I don't believe that the forums were incorporated into the unified login system. I am not sure what changes might have been made to the other login pages that weren't made to the forums (if any).

They were. If you open an incognito window (or whatever it might be called in your browser of choice) and navigate to the forums, and click the 'Log in' button it should redirect you to our login servers. Although, in your case, it probably wouldn't. It might be that you had a cookie that was logged in prior to the change, but I would still think that it would get sent to the servers for authentication.
CCP Atropos
C C P
C C P Alliance
#796 - 2013-06-24 23:45:38 UTC
Par'Gellen wrote:
CCP Atropos wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

5. why are you not asking multiboxer's now what they want from a launcher regarding functionality, rather than just doing what ever it is you plan to do? this is a pretty simple thing to do, sent out a survey to everyone with more than 3 accounts registered to anyone email address

We are actually doing this.

I am waiting for my email to this survey you speak of. I would LOVE to detail what I need for running multiple accounts and actually have someone care what I say. I would also LOVE to help with testing the new launchers and be more than an ignored voice on the forums.

You're not an ignored voice on these forums; quite the opposite. I thought I had a nice back and forth with you earlier in one of the EVE Launcher threads. Once we've worked out what, when and how, to do the survey I'm sure you will receive an email; it's not really my domain though, since I'm merely interested in the results Smile
Seth Toralen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#797 - 2013-06-24 23:52:26 UTC
CCP Atropos wrote:
Seth Toralen wrote:
CCP Atropos wrote:
Thank you so much for this information. I'll add it all to the defect and talk to our Ops guys. It is very strange that you're still able to access the forums, since it's all using the same load balancing and certificates, as far as I'm aware.


I will point out that I don't believe that the forums were incorporated into the unified login system. I am not sure what changes might have been made to the other login pages that weren't made to the forums (if any).

They were. If you open an incognito window (or whatever it might be called in your browser of choice) and navigate to the forums, and click the 'Log in' button it should redirect you to our login servers. Although, in your case, it probably wouldn't. It might be that you had a cookie that was logged in prior to the change, but I would still think that it would get sent to the servers for authentication.


Wow. You are quite right. When I use an incognito window, I am redirected to login.eveonline and cannot login to the forums. I guess this means that when you fix this apparent security problem (I guess it's not authenticating), I will lose access to the forums too. In the meantime, I better not empty my cookies.

Petitions and bug reports still don't direct to login.eveonline though. I have logged in to those areas fine. At the very least, please don't change that or I'll be stuck just emailing you guys.
Par'Gellen
#798 - 2013-06-25 01:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Par'Gellen
CCP Atropos wrote:
You're not an ignored voice on these forums; quite the opposite. I thought I had a nice back and forth with you earlier in one of the EVE Launcher threads. Once we've worked out what, when and how, to do the survey I'm sure you will receive an email; it's not really my domain though, since I'm merely interested in the results Smile
I was speaking more in general, not directing anything at you specifically. I've been here a long time and am very used to my feedback being completely dismissed by CCP. After the Uniborked Inventory debacle last year I realized nothing I said was being heard and simply gave up wasting my time on giving feedback from the test server. I've become very jaded because of this and apologize if I overreacted and came across harshly. I do that sometimes...

As I've said before, I have no problems with the launcher itself as it stands right now as far as getting into the game is concerned. After I stopped trying to use multiple folders for different clients and just started launching them all from the same path all my issues went away and it is fairly speedy. Is it clunky? Yes. Could it be improved a hundred fold? Yes. Is it a show stopper for me? No.

Now my biggest problem with the launcher and multiple clients is character switching. The new launcher has made that a huge pain in the arse. I wish to all the gods humanity has ever conceived that I did not have to log out all the way to the freakin launcher just to switch characters on the same account. Do something about that and I will be your biggest fan! Big smile

"To err is human", but it shouldn't be the company motto...
Seth Toralen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#799 - 2013-06-25 01:45:22 UTC
I really do think CCP will add features to the launcher that will make it easier to multibox. I don't multibox myself, but it seems that a lot of the really 'hardcore' multiboxers had done some very intense work setting up a system that worked for them. A system with multiple installations that ran separately and were managed through a third-party central application. It sounds like a beautiful system for them. But with the launcher, that system has been largely broken.

Moving to a launcher-based system necessitated those things breaking. It would have been good of CCP to anticipate how this would affect some multiboxers, but to be fair, multiboxers with multiple installations and third party management software went far outside the design space that CCP laid out. However, I see real potential for this launcher to actually develop into something even better for the multiboxers; it just needs more features and development. It could allow for an equally capable multibox setup with one main installation and no third party software. I think we'll see some of these features, hopefully soon. Unfortunately, some of the people who were affected most by the new launcher were some of EVE's most avid fans who regularly play multiple accounts. On the other hand, I can see why CCP would want to start off with a very basic core launcher and incorporate new features from there.

Keep up the good work resolving the still existing issues and then getting to work on new features to make everyone's experience a little smoother.
DoToo Foo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#800 - 2013-06-25 02:37:11 UTC
Above, it said that there was an email being sent to some multiboxers.

I agree that saving passwords on the client is a bad idea, and like the current use of authentication tokens, and that they expire after many hours.

I like that, when swapping between pilots on any single account, I do not need to re-enter the password.

I dislike that, when rotating pilots for PI, as I login to :

  • account 1 pilot 1,
  • account 2 pilot 1, ...
  • account 1 pilot 2,
  • account 2 pilot 2, ... ,
I have to reenter the password each time.

My personal wishlist, in order of what I believe to be 'less hard' to 'more hard' (nothing is ever easy or simple).


  • Have the launcher remember the login token when swapping between accounts (hopefully simple enough)
  • Link my accounts: Be able to log in once with username and password, and not have to enter the password for each account (again using the login tokens)
  • Link all my pilots: Be able to login once, and have as many active pilots as I have active subscriptions regardless of account

http://foo-eve.blogspot.com.au/