Unlagged: Good or Absolute Scum

[temple]

At the moment I know of none of the more regular european servers that is running Unlagged.

A bunch of idiots on D*S wanted to vote Unlagged off too.

[Puzzola]

"]Unlagged made me do one conclusion :

The players who has a natural ability to prevent enemy's movement or are training to dodge, don't like it because they are always dead in the past with a fucking weird sensation of an alien watching in another side. These kind of people generally don't have any problems to aim by managing their own ping. In one word, they only see disadvantages in unlagged.

The players who has a natural hability to be static and die everytime by good aliens don't see any differences with or without unlagged about dodging (haha they don't dodge so it's normal). But because they sux at aim by managing their own ping, the are in love with unlagged which it make them hit enemies they couldn't dream about.

So i describe here 2 kind of people :

Players who can aim, dodge and manage their own ping==> good players
Players who don't dodge, can't aim (without unlagged), prefer to give their own ping to the opponent than managing them self ==> erm ...

You can easy deduce for what kind of players unlagged was made.

Unlagged is the easiest way to feel good in tremulous but ... it's just a feeling imho.

Unlagged will never emulates a lan sensation ...


Btw i can say what i want, i stopped playing xD, but a last flame to show to people that unlagged is for nubs was a good candy !

Zipper is the Andy Kaufman of Tremulous, and like him, he's dead.... or not.
I love you Zipper   :oops: :oops: :oops:

[jal]

"]The players who has a natural ability to prevent enemy's movement or are training to dodge, don't like it because they are always dead in the past with a fucking weird sensation of an alien watching in another side. These kind of people generally don't have any problems to aim by managing their own ping. In one word, they only see disadvantages in unlagged.

I don't even play Trem too much, but I do these things fairly well, and can aim with lag fine after 10 years of playing quake series. I'm not any kind of Trem "pro" tho cause I don't spend that much time playing games anymore, but when I play at publics I use to be at the top positions of the scores (I use to be at Corbina or TBase under 'killingspree' name). It's not the same as playing pickups or clangames, ofc, but I'm not any newb at fighting, and I do think antilag would improve this game a lot, and the people who doesn't trust it now will find it a must have after getting used to it.

[[A]]

And I do think antilag would improve this game a lot, and the people who doesn't trust it now will find it a must have after getting used to it.

Personal statistics in eu :

1 month after unlagged has appeared :

95% of "serious" public server had unlagged

now (4-5 month later) :

10% of "serious" public server have unlagged.

All the top-players in eu are non-unlagged-players at the moment. And many of them was unlagged-players before.

Deduce what you want.

edit : in your debate, you should think about that : the "ping-problems" in America are not the same in Europe.

[jal]

I'm not surprised about that. I tried it and felt bad too, but that's just cause the implementation needs to be refined, not cause antilag is a bad thing.
Watch at Warsow case: The game is populated by ex-q3 and ex-ut competitive players. I don't know about the ut guys, but q3 competitive players always had the position of unlagged being evil crap. In Warsow there aren't any complaints (further than some issue reported for us to solve) and the 100% of the servers kept it enabled.

[Nux]

I tried it and felt bad too, but that's just cause the implementation needs to be refined, not cause antilag is a bad thing.

Perfect antilag would be a great thing. It wouldn't ever be able to rid you of lag, but it would help if you had no alternative. Unlagged isn't perfect though. It's not likely to ever be, but that's no reason to stop improving it.

I opened this discussion to raise awareness about the problems people have with unlagged, not to "condemn it to the depths of the earth like the worthless piece of excrement it is". I hope you understand that I made the 'absolute scum' option as a satirical way of having a negative option.

[Undeference]

"]

And I do think antilag would improve this game a lot, and the people who doesn't trust it now will find it a must have after getting used to it.

Personal statistics in eu :

1 month after unlagged has appeared :

95% of "serious" public server had unlagged

now (4-5 month later) :

10% of "serious" public server have unlagged.

All the top-players in eu are non-unlagged-players at the moment. And many of them was unlagged-players before.

Deduce what you want.

edit : in your debate, you should think about that : the "ping-problems" in America are not the same in Europe.

Unlagged "first appeared" in Tremulous at the beginning of last December (and by "first appeared", I assume you mean "was committed to svn"). This was after my r838 qvm was initially "released" (some servers were running it before then). It was also shortly before Risujin released his "Risujin/Avenger" qvm.
I'm not too sure about who uses what now, but I'd guess a large number still use one of Risujin's qvms, with a good number going over to Lakitu7's (which was not released until May of this year) and a very small fraction running their own code.

So this leads me to believe your statistics are wrong.
1 month after unlagged was committed

approximately 0% of "serious" public servers had unlagged

now (8 months later)

approximately ?% of "serious" public servers have unlagged (too lazy to query all the servers to see which have "g_unlagged" set at all, and those with "g_unlagged" set to a non-0 value).

[Nux]

If you want your statistics to stand up well, you need to define what "serious" public servers exactly are. I think a suitable definition would go along the lines of 'Frequently used' and/or 'Well thought of' (whether or not many people hold it in high regard). These two description would also be based of statistical evidence.

[David]

Unlagged off: 32
Unlagged on: 45

Counting all servers with g_unlagged.

[Steely Ann]

What about those servers with g_serious I keep hearing about, David?  They sound awesome.

[Nux]

g_serious is a new anti-lousy server program. Whenever a high-pinging person connects to a server, if g_serious is active, the server will reposition that person to a buiding local to the server; will remolecularise his PC into a supercomputer and replace his brain with someone's who has played tremulous for 200 years longer than the game has been out.

[Undeference]

Unlagged off: 32
Unlagged on: 45

Counting all servers with g_unlagged.

Are you sure you didn't reverse those numbers? This is what I get.

Code: [Select]

invalid, har har (read on)
I'll probably check again later and see if the numbers change substantially.

[David]

Heres the script I used:

Code: [Select]

#!/bin/bash
trap 'rm $TMP_FILE' EXIT
TMP_FILE=$(mktemp)
quakestat -tremulousm master.tremulous.net  -progress -R | grep g_unlagged > $TMP_FILE
echo Unlagged off: $(grep g_unlagged=0 $TMP_FILE | wc -l)
echo Unlagged on: $(grep -v g_unlagged=0 $TMP_FILE | wc -l)
Output:

Code: [Select]

202/202 (23 timed out, 1 down)  13 servers/sec  
Unlagged off: 33
Unlagged on: 45

It basically counts how many have the string 'g_unlagged=0' and assumes all else have it on...

[garoth]

Man, David pwns at scripts. I can barely read that... can't imagine being able to write them bash scripts.

Also, logically, I don't see anything wrong with it. Not really a professional though.

[Nux]

It basically counts how many have the string 'g_unlagged=0' and assumes all else have it on...

Here's the problem. You've wrongly assumed that all servers that don't have g_unlagged 0 must have g_unlagged 1. As Undeference accounted for in his more thorough search, 11 servers don't support unlagged and so wouldn't have the string g_unlagged 0 or g_unlagged 1.

You could have just assumed that only those WITH the string g_unlagged 1 would have it. This is a perfectly sensible assumption and would have gotten you the correct result.

Also, Undeference has gone one step further in adding usage statistics (based on whether they have more than 0 people at that time, presummably). Thanks Undeference!

[David]

Mine only counted ones that had g_unlagged set, and as !0 = on, its right.  I think.
Also, you can note that it only counts one with g_unlagged set by the fact that it says 200 servers, and then only lists ~80

[Undeference]

lalala... okay, you were right. i just had my conditions reversed :oops:

Code: [Select]

Value '200' treated as on ({tHc} Steroide)
Value '150' treated as on ({tHc} public)
Value '400' treated as on (experimental)
Value '1000' treated as on ((!) Server)
                OCCUPIED        EMPTY   TOTAL
Timed out       -               -       26
Unsupported     21              83      104
Enabled         15              31      46
Disabled        7               22      29
Servers         43              136     205what's with servers with weird values for g_unlagged? those values will all be treated as on by the server (if the server supports it), but they could be lying ('sets g_unlagged 1000').

-----
So there are still a large number of servers that don't know what unlagged is, but of those that do, most have it on.

[David]

I think a really old version used that for how long to roll back or something...

Also, what did you use to make that?
The output looks too nice for a quickly hacked up script...

[Undeference]

Also, what did you use to make that?
The output looks too nice for a quickly hacked up script...

well, it is kinda a quickly hacked up script, right smack in the middle of a bigger program where it really does not belong.
i made it with a bunch of little dependencies i wrote before. one of the dependencies i didn't use for it is for pretty printing. the output you saw just uses tabs

[kevlarman]

lalala... okay, you were right. i just had my conditions reversed :oops:

Code: [Select]

Value '200' treated as on ({tHc} Steroide)
Value '150' treated as on ({tHc} public)
Value '400' treated as on (experimental)
Value '1000' treated as on ((!) Server)
                OCCUPIED        EMPTY   TOTAL
Timed out       -               -       26
Unsupported     21              83      104
Enabled         15              31      46
Disabled        7               22      29
Servers         43              136     205what's with servers with weird values for g_unlagged? those values will all be treated as on by the server (if the server supports it), but they could be lying ('sets g_unlagged 1000').

-----
So there are still a large number of servers that don't know what unlagged is, but of those that do, most have it on.

the wraths qvm limits the rewind to g_unlagged.integer milliseconds at most.