The problem with ignoring "unintentional" laggers.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Sure, the requirements aren't written on paper like say, a PC game is. But if I buy a PC game that says I meet the minimal requirements, but not the recommended requirements... I'm not going to be shocked when I'm missing out on some of the game. Just because I paid for it doesn't mean I'm entitled to experience it when I lack what is recommended.

Participating in online gaming means you're putting yourself in that situation whether it's written down or not. I've downloaded plenty of games and realized I just couldn't enjoy it with my internet connection, even though I met the minimal requirements. Now this becomes especially bad when it goes from tarnishing your personal enjoyment, to messing it up for everyone else that has to play with you.

I'm not saying be unreasonable -- if someone is warping all over the place, go ahead and kick them. Arbitrary limits on ping, like the OP seems to be suggesting, are just unfair. If it's that much of a problem, use serverside hit detection.

Really, all I hear is "stop whining, stop being butthurt"... sounds like who's really butthurt is the minority that this is going to affect. Why don't you deal with the fact that you're actually going to have to deal with having a ****ty internet connection instead of everyone else that has the displeasure of participating in events with you.

My ping right now on UN is 29 MS.

[Cloven]

Definitely support a cap, and the cap should take averages into consideration in case (as was already stated) spikes occasionally happen. Over all this is likely the fairest method and will support the largest majority possible.

I feel for those people who are unable (for whatever reason) to obtain faster and/or more reliable internet service, however the greater majority should not be forced to suffer because of it. There is just no logic to be found in presuming otherwise in my opinion.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Cloven

Definitely support a cap, and the cap should take averages into consideration in case (as was already stated) spikes occasionally happen. Over all this is likely the fairest method and will support the largest majority possible.

I feel for those people who are unable (for whatever reason) to obtain faster and/or more reliable internet service, however the greater majority should not be forced to suffer because of it. There is just no logic to be found in presuming otherwise in my opinion.

You're not considering other options, such as serverside hit detection.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

You're not considering other options, such as serverside hit detection.

Ya, let's move Unholy Nation over to serverside hit detection. That'll go well... are you even listening to what you're saying?

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Ya, let's move Unholy Nation over to serverside hit detection. That'll go well... are you even listening to what you're saying?

Of course I am, and I'm only talking about events/sparring. Serverside hit detection got a bad name because Classic got it wrong, but I'd bet it's preferable to clientside detection if done correctly.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

You're not considering other options, such as serverside hit detection.

Not one single person on the server would want this.

[Cloven]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

You're not considering other options, such as serverside hit detection.

Produce a quality method for doing this, test it, take a preference poll. If the poll substantially agrees with you then I'd have real reason to consider it. Otherwise I don't see how putting the cart before the horse is a practical option at this time.