Talk:Lockstep protocol

Computing: Networking / Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (3 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (12 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

First draft

This is a rather literal interpretation of the protocol as described in Algorithms and Networking for Computer Games by Jouni Smed and Harri Hakonen. It may need some more content to go into more detail, and perhaps also requires an introduction in broader context. — Stimpy 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this first draft but the crux of the issue is that it is generally presenting the protocol in an incorrect manner. It wasn't conceived as a solution to cheating at all but as a way to make possible to have massive numbers of units for multiplayer on ancient network bandwidth and hardware (by today's standards). It also isn't in any way a cheating prevention since it requires game state to be shared between players, which only makes cheating easier - and by its nature, any cheating that interferes with that game state causes desynchrozination, which in modern titles (like Starcraft 2) are easily detected and automatically causes a match to abort. This article is a much better overview of the subject, if a bit technical. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3094/1500_archers_on_a_288_network_.php?print=1 2804:431:F704:849E:A62:66FF:FE99:6A71 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is a bit confusing -- it makes it seem like a commitment is an inherent part of the lockstep protocol. I also agree with the user above; preventing cheating isn't the main goal and regardless of that, I think that saying it's a partial solution should more clearly say why (and that commitments make it a complete solution). Paraknight (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]