Author Topic: Azrael's Unlagged Patch  (Read 5192 times)

Illuminatio

  • Posts: 8
  • Turrets: +2/-2
Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« on: November 27, 2007, 05:36:09 am »
How does this differ from stock unlagged? (i.e. unlagged straight from the SVN)
I have seen certain servers set g_unlagged to 100 - 300, and I was curious as to what they meant.

"Dominus Illuminatio Mea."

Lakitu7

  • Tremulous Developers
  • *
  • Posts: 1002
  • Turrets: +120/-73
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2007, 07:34:53 am »
g_unlagged 100 means that people with pings < 100 ms benefit from unlagged, while those > 100 ms don't.

This is an attempt at "limiting" unlagged to reduce its hotly-debated effects on balance and being "shot around corners." However, it actually makes the situation worse since people who have a low ping can play as if they have a 0 ping (do not have to lead hitscan shots), while those who have a high ping have to lead shots like everyone did before unlagged. The result is that people with low pings are necessarily better than people with high pings by an ever larger margin than before unlagged.

Furthermore, someone whose ping is fluctuating around the g_unlagged amount will have each shot randomly be affected by unlagged or not, resulting in some of their shots being dead-on and some having to be lead.

The correct way to limit being "shot around corners" is to set g_maxping for the server to whatever amount and not allow high-ping players to connect in the first place, instead of using this patch to allow them to connect but disable unlagged for them, basically setting them up to be slaughtered.

Honestly, I was pretty excited when this patch came out and I read about it too, but after spending some time talking to the guys that ported unlagged in the first place and understand it better than anyone else, I learned that it's definitely not the patch I'd been hoping for.

jal

  • Posts: 249
  • Turrets: +8/-7
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2007, 11:03:27 am »
g_unlagged 100 means that people with pings < 100 ms benefit from unlagged, while those > 100 ms don't

Don't at all? That's dumb. They should be compensated as if they had 100. That would make a person with 150 ping play as if he had 50.

Yarou

  • Posts: 218
  • Turrets: +43/-109
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2007, 08:54:04 pm »
The current implementation of unlagged is as good as it possibly can be.
As much I hate it, it seems to be the standard in SVN.


Currently:
{&}Yarou

kangounator

  • Posts: 35
  • Turrets: +2/-1
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2007, 10:24:33 pm »
Azreal"s patch is not correcting 100 of ping or 0, it does corret 100 of ping for everyone, including high pingers, thus good pingers does have a unlagged and high pings can play like players with a normal ping.
Quote from: CitRoN
Muuuuuuuuuh ]={:}

Azrael07

  • Posts: 33
  • Turrets: +3/-13
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2007, 10:43:38 am »
Hi,

First, g_unlagged 100 don't recover from a ping 100 displaying at client side. It is a pretty hard to make a real association between g_unlagged ms and ping displayed.

After many test, I see a g_unlagged 200 give a unlagged fully on for all players with a ping < 100, and a ping reduction for others.

As Jal and Kagounator said, if you have a bad ping like 300 with a unlagged 100, you will have a ping improvement, and you will probably play like a ping arround of 230.

We use this unlagged patch for about 6 months ago with a 200 value on {tHc}Public server, and it is pretty good : always unlagged on effect for players with a good or medium ping, and disapearing of strange effects given by unlagged fully on (mass driver shot behind a wall, goon chomp from 3km of I, ...), but without fully remove unlagged for bad ping, and give them a really better game than with unlagged off.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2007, 10:48:21 am by Azrael07 »

jal

  • Posts: 249
  • Turrets: +8/-7
Re: Azrael's Unlagged Patch
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2007, 10:04:10 am »
I'm 100% in favor of this approach. It's the one we took in Warsow too.