To me there are 2 problems that make me strongly dislike latency improvement code.
#1) Calculating hits locally increases the ability to cheat.
#2) Any adjustments make lag unpredictable and the gameplay suffers extremely. The first UT is the poster child for this. Instagib in UT is like Russian roulette. Lag in q2 is very predictable and once you learn your lead time, you can be very effective at it. We've got a boatload of talented players at 150 ping.
The superserver idea retains Q2's predictable lag, in terms of the usual Q2 lead time when aiming.But the lag itself is minimized by being able to connect to a geographically proximate leaf server.
Quote from: peewee_RotA on August 08, 2011, 05:15:14 AMTo me there are 2 problems that make me strongly dislike latency improvement code.You're probably not replying to the superserver idea, but I'll provide a contrasting replies anyway, in case it helps clarify the difference.
We've got a boatload of talented players at 150 ping.
Quote from: quadz on August 08, 2011, 06:27:22 AMThe superserver idea retains Q2's predictable lag, in terms of the usual Q2 lead time when aiming.But the lag itself is minimized by being able to connect to a geographically proximate leaf server.If there's no difference in lag then it wouldn't help for playing against players playing on the other side of the world (like now), it would only treat everybody on the "local" server as "locals" ping wise, correct? So if I was playing on a Russian server directly my ping would be 250 (for example). If I used your way, it would still be 250, but any players in the USA would have a much lower ping (to me).
A similar idea was floated to me by a former boss when discussing the problem with him. His idea is basically torrenting information between clients. It's a wonderful idea for slow paced games (mmorpgs) with higher security to stop cheat clients... but it probably would never work for FPSes.
if I were you I'd erase this thread and put together a prototype system and look into patents : ).