3 ms·
> Sadly, fighting games, and to the same extent FPS casually break that assumption. 1s is an eternity in a close fight. Sure, but that's nothing compared to th
by Galanwe 6y ago
> Sadly, fighting games, and to the same extent FPS casually break that assumption. 1s is an eternity in a close fight.
Sure, but that's nothing compared to the speed of just polling inputs.
I would assume a pro player in a fighting game to have what, say 180 APM at peak ?
That's 3 actions per second, so if we assume a uniform holding time and a 60 FPS game that's 1 input change every 20 polled inputs. Assuming repeated inputs does seem like a good strategy in this situation.
An other way of seeing it, is that if a player with 180APM realistically can only change inputs every 333ms, then with a remote input lag of 25ms (50ms ping / 2) there is just a 1/13 chance that an input change would occur in this time slice.
- hrktb 6y agoI actually agree that assuming input didn’t change is the most pragmatical course of action, as even if the input changed I’d assume there’s just no way to efficiently anticipate it at this point. With that strategy the best case scenario is optimal, and worse case scenario is not worse than for any other option. On the 1 change every 20 polls calculation, it’s true locally, but for a ping of 200ms for instance, 333ms of loss is ‘only’ 3 times the one way trip time. I think momentarily losing 3 times the connection speed happens often enough, and of course the bar for losing an actual action due to lag is yet lower for intercontinental games.