Hacker News Reader

Often it’s only on LAN games for tourneys where the tick rate is that high. With internet latency or bandwidth requirements at that rate you are going to start dropping more and more packets and suffer from potentially more client side mispredictions.

View on HN

Packet loss is usually very low. 1% and the game will most likely be unplayable.

Sending twice as many packets and losing 1% of them should be playable.

Maybe if you send some packets twice. Otherwise no. Packet loss is deadly.

I would go so far as to say that netcode for an FPS is objectively wrong if it's not sending data in a redundant form that can tolerate lost packets.

Tolerate yes, but it will still have an impact. In case of an online shooter, resending it will cost an additional RTT. If that resend is even happening, the next packet will make the dropped one obsolete.

Resends in an FPS are for dire scenarios, not 1% loss. 1% packet loss can be easily obsoleted and compensated, and the general performance of having 126/128 packets can be better than 60/60.

It's not frequent that I experience much loss when playing 128t servers. Mostly zero, very occasionally 1%. I wouldn't be paying monthly for it if I knew it to happen frequently.

My biggest gripe with ESEA is that I cannot have Hyper-V enabled on the OS that I am playing from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com