I really enjoy these articles about networked games from a time when both machine and network wer quite restricted. Thanks @nickpsecurity.
I loved the left field solution they came up with - run the game simulation on all the computers with same inputs - and how they handled differing computer performance.
–
Cheating to reveal information locally was still possible, but these few leaks were relatively easy to secure in subsequent patches and revisions.
This part I’m not convinced about, but possibly this was true because the user’s computer was so saturated. I bet with a powerful enough machine the user could peek into the running state of the simulation and expose internal details of the other player, basically lifting the fog of war.
–
A deer slightly out of alignment when the random map was created would forage slightly differently – and minutes later a villager would path a tiny bit off, or miss with his spear and take home no meat.
Also known as the butterfly effect (No, not the movie). But I can’t understand how this would happen with identical initial conditions unless we are talking different rounding errors. I wonder if you could use intermittent (expensive) sync frames to sync pairs of simulations during lulls in the action.
Another article along these lines that I like relates to Descent .. Oh No! That site has gone away :(. Here is an archived copy
It was extra interesting to me given I had a 28.8Kbps line with AOLHell. Enjoyed every song I got off that line given how long they took.
Far as cheating, I do know many games keep global state on server instead of client to avoid that kind of cheating. I know WoW particularly had boys that pesk into memory. I found them when designing a semi-automated, goldfarming operation. Never did it: just toying with how it would work technically, financially, etc.
I used to love Descent. Thanks for article. I’ll read it tonight.
I really enjoy these articles about networked games from a time when both machine and network wer quite restricted. Thanks @nickpsecurity.
I loved the left field solution they came up with - run the game simulation on all the computers with same inputs - and how they handled differing computer performance.
–
This part I’m not convinced about, but possibly this was true because the user’s computer was so saturated. I bet with a powerful enough machine the user could peek into the running state of the simulation and expose internal details of the other player, basically lifting the fog of war.
–
Also known as the butterfly effect (No, not the movie). But I can’t understand how this would happen with identical initial conditions unless we are talking different rounding errors. I wonder if you could use intermittent (expensive) sync frames to sync pairs of simulations during lulls in the action.
Another article along these lines that I like relates to Descent .. Oh No! That site has gone away :(. Here is an archived copy
It was extra interesting to me given I had a 28.8Kbps line with AOLHell. Enjoyed every song I got off that line given how long they took.
Far as cheating, I do know many games keep global state on server instead of client to avoid that kind of cheating. I know WoW particularly had boys that pesk into memory. I found them when designing a semi-automated, goldfarming operation. Never did it: just toying with how it would work technically, financially, etc.
I used to love Descent. Thanks for article. I’ll read it tonight.