3 ms·
So much junk seems to go into games to make sure people don't cheat. I wonder how much faster/responsive a network based game could be if it was just assumed no
by jasonkostempski 10y ago
So much junk seems to go into games to make sure people don't cheat. I wonder how much faster/responsive a network based game could be if it was just assumed no one is cheating. I'm sure more things could be done client side, like all player vs AI engagements.
- oakwhiz 10y agoEvery player could use the same pseudo random number generators with the same seed and predict the same random result instead of downloading it from the server.
- StavrosK 10y agoSure, until any player gave any input whatsoever. How are you going to predict player actions?
- ygra 10y agoCheating is prevalent in some kinds of games precisely because you cannot send everything over the network and have the server be the only truth of the game. For things like Civilization is trivial to have the server verify everything every player does, since latency is fairly irrelevant. For shooters where you get only 16 ms of processing (and data sending) time per frame, or even less (for 128 tick), this approach couldn't work. So they kinda already assume no one cheats because they have to. CSGO validates bullet hits server-side but that's about it (which means the client cannot just say 'the bullet hit there', something which in the past allowed cheaters to ignore bullet spread and recoil).