Tarkov studio claims it actually doesn't have the server capacity for everyone who bought the game for $150 to play its upcoming PvE mode, still wants players to pay extra

ylai@lemmy.ml to Gaming@lemmy.ml – 310 points –
Tarkov studio claims it actually doesn't have the server capacity for everyone who bought the game for $150 to play its upcoming PvE mode, still wants players to pay extra
pcgamer.com
85

You are viewing a single comment

Why not? More computationally intensive things are done to calculate lighting in a lot of modern games as I alluded to. Yes it would increase the load on your CPU but that's less of a problem nowadays with higher core counts and clock speeds and it's not like modern anticheats don't steal some CPU cycles already. I think you underestimate the power of modern computers. I'm not trying to be condescending here but it is worth remembering that gigahertz means BILLIONS of calculations per second.

We're only talking in theoreticals right now anyways, it is entirely possible that a game studio has tried this and it hasn't worked, I just don't put a lot of faith in modern game companies.

You cannot break the speed of light with computational effort.

You're saying that you want to have a round trip from client to server and back happen in-between frames.

You cannot do that. Period. You will not ever have latencies that low.

Even if you frame lock it at 60fps that means you're calculating views, sending the data up the tube, checking it on the server, responding back with all the data about the new character that should appear and then rendering the new guy within 17ms.

That is physically impossible.

That's why I already proposed tolerance for ~200ms with trajectory projections

So you're going to take all the places a character could be in the next 200ms, do Ray casting on all of them and send that data to the server to check every 17ms?

While the server also does that for 15 other players at the same time.

Do you know what algorithmic complexity is? Big O notation? If so - that's a n³ * 15m³ problem space that you're expanding out across 200ms every 17ms, where n is player locations possible in x/y/z and m is the other players locations. Physics collisions are usually the biggest drain on a computer's cycles in game and in the worst case that's n² complexity.

You're talking insanely taxing here.

It's mainly client side not server side. I'm not typing out an essay for you about a random ass idea I had one day on a forum.

I'm just baffled by the idea. No need to defend it though, this is all arbitrary anyways. It's not like anyone is going to do this.

True, I'm of the belief that gaming companies aren't too fussed about cheaters if they're bringing money in some way.