[MUD-Dev] Gearing up against GEAR

Kevin Littlejohn darius at bofh.net.au
Tue Jul 24 19:19:24 New Zealand Standard Time 2001

"Travis Nixon" wrote

> Now we're moving from the area of averaging into the area of
> backtracking to see what the earliest point you could possibly
> receieve a new strike.  So from a client who should be striking
> every 5 seconds, it's entirely possible that you receive a strike
> at 9 and a strike at 10.  That's a valid exchange even though
> there's only one second in between the strikes.  But receiving one
> at 6 and one at 7 would not be valid, because the internet can
> only slow things down, not send them back into the past. :) This
> is where things start to get pretty ugly, but hey, I didn't say
> validation was easy, just that you have to do it if you want to
> prevent hack-based advantages.

This rings a bell - Quake proxy things, which allow you to dodge
bullets, do so by (if my understanding is correct) sending a packet
late, marked as having been generated earlier, saying you moved.  So
you're happily trundling along, and a rocket explodes where you are
- except your client spots that that's happening, and sends what
appears to be a lagged packet to the server saying "hey, I changed
direction".  Server backtracks because, well, it has to, and presto
- you weren't there after all ;)

Oh, this stuff would be so much fun to code for - is there an
established body of knowledge yet from the people doing
reaction-based 'net games that one can refer to?

Internet techie                    Obsidian Consulting Group
Specialising in proxy servers and traffic measuring/billing.
http://www.obsidian.com.au/           darius at obsidian.com.au

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list