61–70 of 73 posts
Why hasn't valve poured a billion or two on fixing this concept and implementing it?
>Release Notes for 5/26/2015 >– Added trace-based visibility checks to prevent networking invisible enemy players. https://blog.counter-strike.net/2015/05/11988
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tick is the smallest amount of time the server does its "work" in. It does not mean, as the person I'm replying to was implying, that clients are 100% always lined up, because a game is played (locally) at much higher update rates. So a server, of course, does send updates (player position, etc.) every "tick," but that doesn't matter. Even assuming zero dropped packets (suppose we're playing over TCP), it would fee…
In the context of this fog of war thread when we're talking about pop in and peekers advantage. The relevant bit is to make the game fair for the both of them. For FOW its trivial to make the decision to reveal both players to each client during the same tick. Yes I'm aware of all the other knobs and gameplay possibilities. Ive got a shitload of hours and followed pro scenes for a long time, none of that matters to t…
And I explained why this is not feasible given modern network topology. Players move around maps and peek around corners in between these "tick updates" the client gets from the server; therefore, we have to use clever methods of interpolation and prediction as well as server consensus to ensure that gameplay is smooth (e.g. models can't just pop in out of nowhere, movement feels good) while also being as fair as possible (e.g. we don't favor one player's view over another's).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on earth don't the producers of the game implement this? It sounds trivial to do?
The many tradeoffs involved are not trivial, this can only feasibly work well on LAN. This is the reason why Valorant is the least playable among all competitive shooters if your internet is anything lesser than Google campus fiber, ironically in spite of having even-slower-than-CS movement physics on its side to mask the problem. Riot conveniently cherry picks the best case scenario and handwaves the actual technica…
This must have been CS 1.4 or 1.5 times. I had terrible internet. 36k modem times, super high (ish - 150+ms at the very least, been a while, don't quote me, maybe it was way higher even?) ping to a server that had all the custom maps I loved.
I got accused of cheating.
I didn't.
Simply a result of CS/HL netcode. I was able to "run circles" around others. Something in that version favored my local client view of things I suppose. I literally just went around corners and if there was an enemy I circled them while driving bullets into them w/ my P90. They died without even really seeing me (from what they were saying). On my end everything looked smooth and normal.
This tactic never worked all that well on servers where I had the usual <120ms ping. I guess never mind at <15ms :)
This has been done before in both 1.6 as well as Source. I helped with some of these implementations back in the late-2000s when I was playing professionally and I even tried to kickstart an anti-cheat hardware solution about a decade ago[1].. spent way too much time working on some of these problems. The main issue with occlusion was slightly increased latency, visual jitter because of interpolation (especially arou…
I wonder why similar methods haven't been employed in MMO servers to help curb botting/cheating there. The impact of jitter and loss of smoothness in a tab-target game like WoW would be minimal (even in PvP), because it's always had a noticable level of artifacts like rubberbanding.
I wonder if it could spawn "ghost players" in places no player could be to detect reaction
The players who react to fake enemies self-identify as cheaters.
Why doesn't Valve implement this natively?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the context of this fog of war thread when we're talking about pop in and peekers advantage. The relevant bit is to make the game fair for the both of them. For FOW its trivial to make the decision to reveal both players to each client during the same tick. Yes I'm aware of all the other knobs and gameplay possibilities. Ive got a shitload of hours and followed pro scenes for a long time, none of that matters to t…
> to reveal both players to each client during the same tick And I explained why this is not feasible given modern network topology. Players move around maps and peek around corners in between these "tick updates" the client gets from the server; therefore, we have to use clever methods of interpolation and prediction as well as server consensus to ensure that gameplay is smooth (e.g. models can't just pop in out of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't an unsolvable problem though, there's only jitter because the implementation isn't very good Implementing a more conservative anti wallhack cheat where player positions start streaming in slightly earlier still significantly cuts down on the efficacy of wallhacking, while entirely avoiding the jitter problem. Characters in CSGO move at a fixed speed, so you can calculate exactly how many ticks in advance you…
> They're a small company which largely develops steam as a platform, not VAC or anticheat solutions for games If anyone can afford to develop effective anti-cheat, Valve can.
Cursed timeline: Valve pays Epic for good EAC build on CS2 + whatever encryption solution they have for Fortnite executable, 99.9% P2Cs disappear day 1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're a small company which largely develops steam as a platform, not VAC or anticheat solutions for games If anyone can afford to develop effective anti-cheat, Valve can.
They’d need to either poach folks from other firms or go for a third party solution. Cursed timeline: Valve pays Epic for good EAC build on CS2 + whatever encryption solution they have for Fortnite executable, 99.9% P2Cs disappear day 1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Release Notes for 5/26/2015 >– Added trace-based visibility checks to prevent networking invisible enemy players. https://blog.counter-strike.net/2015/05/11988
That's for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - different engine.