Talk:Lockstep protocol

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. &mdash; Stimpy 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)