Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoht
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yeah, it's nonsense. There is no correlation between ping and FPS.
Ping is the response time between your client and the server.
FPS is the speed that it takes pixels to render from your video card to your monitor.
OP is trying to measure reaction time in ping from different computers with unknown relation to the geographic location of the hosted server when all he's got is FPS.
OP dismisses obvious flaws as "rubber banding" when in reality almost everything you see from the movement of other characters not your own fall under rubber banding. It's not precise.
The server does not monitor the position of your character. That is 100% client side (which is why warping in MQ works). Your client sends updates to the server, and the server shares those updates with other players, so the locations are no longer accurate by the time the other players receive them.
You ever sent a tell in guild chat at the same exact time of somebody else? It shows up first on your screen, but it shows up in a different order from someone else. Why? Because your chat was displayed client side without interaction from the server and chat from everybody else had to go from your client to the server to their client.
OP spent 2 months producing a 30 minute video based on the flawed assumption that he could measure reaction time frame by frame when there's literally nothing to keep the players locations synchronized in real time.
When measured against an admitted cheater, Stunningly's reaction time lost. Therefore Stunningly must be a cheater, right?
|
I think that there is an error in this logic. The idea that anything in the real world is completely provable is false. If we assume for the moment that the video in question contains no methodological or calculation errors and we compared that to a hypothetical admission of guilt from the accused parties then the statistical argument presented in the video is still more valid than the admission of guilt. This is because human testimony is a terrible source of information that is generally avoided in favor of empirical data.
All we can ever have is evidence not proof and assuming no methodological or calculation errors in that presentation then the author has moved the bar from something like 99.9% to 99.999%. If you set the bar at 100% then you have asked for the bar of proof to be set so high nobody can ever achieve it. This is bad for a server that promises a fair raid scene and impartial staff. (I'm not saying that staff are not these things just pointing it out) Everyone here including Vanquish should have a vested interest in the server maintaining its integrity.
As stated in the video, this kind of analysis in speed running is done with direct input logs of when buttons were pressed. The devs of the server presumably don't have access to that level of information about the users of p99. For this server to have any integrity in the raid the burden of reasonable doubt not absolute proof needs to be used.
If we use the burden of reasonable doubt then the accused look guilty af.
That being said, I'm bias so if you want to prove it wrong go poke actual objective holes in his analysis instead of hand waving lag from the monitor to the whatever whatever whatever.
Provide a counter example where you use his methodology and produce provably honest reaction times that contradict his claims.