Article 0004 Prev Next

Subject: Re: Lag sucks... But do we want a synced Descent ?
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:51:46 GMT
From: (Adam Pletcher)
Organization: Volition, Inc.

"John M. Aldrich" wrote:
>That said, the point is moot. Outrage (or Volition; I can't recall
>which of the two is doing D3) has already announced that D3 will use the
>client-server model. This means less cheating, but worse Internet

I don't think this is a foregone conclusion, really. Client-server
certainly puts an increased load on one machine (dedicated or not),
and of course that machine has greater bandwidth needs, but it also
offers some potential performance advantages (disregarding the bonus
of decreased cheating).

What if all the AI processing (a substantial element in coop Descent
or other peer2peers like X vs.TIE) was offloaded onto the server as
well? The clients would certainly have more processor time to handle
packets. Many of the lost packets in your average Descent game are
not really lost, but discarded because the processor's swamped with
game rendering, AI, sound mixing, processing earlier packets, etc.

As much as I hate admitting it, I've seen Quakeworld games with 10+
players run as smooth as a Descent 2 game with 8 players, despite its
use of the client-server model (although AI isn't an issue there).
There were lagged players, of course, but it didn't change my game

If Descent was made client-server, then lagged players would only be
punished for high latency rather than all the other players, as seen
in peer to peer games. If you had a nice clear connection to the
server, then you'd be able to wail on him onscreen and know that your
shots were landing because the server is the "authority," not the
lagged user. Not fair to the lagged guy, but better that than to
punish everyone to varying degrees.

Those are my thoughts on it, anyway. BTW, Outrage is doing D3. We're
doing FreeSpace. : )

Adam Pletcher
Volition, Inc.