111–120 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They renamed it because they decided being a pun on "Kama Sutra" was just weird and unprofessional. (Same for the NIPS conference. But oddly not for the science journal PNAS.)
Shame that. Sutra is a word all on its own. Gamasutra was a nifty name. It works. One day sex positive triple-breasted feminist whores of Eroticon Six are all the rage the next you're sunsetting harmless Sanskrit puns. Y'all strange.
Lots and lots of great things in here, thank you for sharing. > At first take it might seem that getting two pieces of identical code to run the same should be fairly easy and straightforward I found that a little funny. I would certainly not assume that. Synchronization problems are one of the scariest areas of programming in my opinion.
IRL it was not simple. The game usually worked, but occasionally things would go out of sync. The biggest downside is mentioned in the article: If one person lags, everyone lags. In an 8-player game, the chance that at least one person lags was pretty high. I used to play on the Mac version of GameRanger, a small community. That was 2008, when reliable internet wasn't as common. Players had personal reputations, and…
You'd generally want an authoritative server to accomplish this. Having it also execute the inputs prevents most cheating, too.
Seeing stuff like this on here fills me with nostalgia. I basically learned to code thanks to a few helpful and extremely patient IRC members in the Spring RTS engine[1] community (some of whom I spot in these comment sections on occasion - hi!), and deterministic lockstep simulation for online play was one of the first ideas that totally blew my mind when I learned about it ("b-but that means all the "random" number…
Yup. That’s how networking basically worked for Army of Two. We only sent controller input over the network. Everything else was deterministic.
It made for incredibly funny replay of matches if you happened to own a newer version of the map, as the game starts to diverge from reality and enter some parallel universe where players do nonsense actions and movements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone waits for your client's next step. Your client can basically pause the game whenever it wants, giving you time to do something. But there are bigger exploits. IIRC, the client sends separate actions for buying a unit/tech/building and paying resources, and the other clients don't enforce that they go together. This allows malicious clients to buy without paying. It's been seen a few times even in the ranked…
That problem doesn't seem inherent to the model, it's a flaw in the selection of client steps. Is there any reason transactions like building and paying couldn't be atomic?
The only exploits that are inherently applicable in the case of a simultaneous deterministic simulation model are those of the information-revealing class (e.g, "maphack"). This is where a standard AH system comes in.
As someone who fixes up old games in my spare time, and Age of Empires II being one of them, I'll provide a bit of trivia about the game's internals: - The AI system is not part of the deterministic simulation. This was surprising to me, and after contacting one of the original programmers it was explained that it was due to a desynchronization bug that the "AI and network programmers weren't able to fix it in time".…
I've been told the source code for it leaked some long time ago and has floated around for the past two decades or so. While most people contend that EA had lost the source code to the Command & Conquer series games many years ago when the studio was closed down and assets were shipped to "DICE" in Stockholm
Seeing stuff like this on here fills me with nostalgia. I basically learned to code thanks to a few helpful and extremely patient IRC members in the Spring RTS engine[1] community (some of whom I spot in these comment sections on occasion - hi!), and deterministic lockstep simulation for online play was one of the first ideas that totally blew my mind when I learned about it ("b-but that means all the "random" number…
If the randomness is deterministic doesn't that mean players could peek into the future?
Maybe a 2001 in the title would help?
We've 10/100mbps in 2001 and I think 1500 archers on 28.8k hayes is a great challenge no matter what the year.
He put out a comment effectively saying "I forgot not everyone has a T1 line. I'm going to order Dial-Up for real-world testing"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IRL it was not simple. The game usually worked, but occasionally things would go out of sync. The biggest downside is mentioned in the article: If one person lags, everyone lags. In an 8-player game, the chance that at least one person lags was pretty high. I used to play on the Mac version of GameRanger, a small community. That was 2008, when reliable internet wasn't as common. Players had personal reputations, and…
That's not intrinsic to this style of netcode, though. Company of Heroes, for instance, just keeps the game running and your input is delayed until you can communicate it to the server. You'd generally want an authoritative server to accomplish this. Having it also execute the inputs prevents most cheating, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shame that. Sutra is a word all on its own. Gamasutra was a nifty name. It works. One day sex positive triple-breasted feminist whores of Eroticon Six are all the rage the next you're sunsetting harmless Sanskrit puns. Y'all strange.
Misogyny isn't cool nor wanted here