Quote:
Originally Posted by plonkster
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's one thing to do client-side prediction with server-side reconciliation for some features such as movement, collision or even bullet hits. In fact, it's been the standard in gaming netcode for the last 3 decades.
Spell interruption, however, does probably not fall into this category. I have a hard time believing that the mechanic was "client rolls the save, and if it fails, it interrupts the spell effects and displays a spell interruption message, but if the server rolls the same save and succeeds, the spell still goes through". After spell interruption, hybrids would start dishing out melee swings on the client, which would not be recorded on the server since from its point of view, the character is still casting.
The EQ netcode is a hell of a clusterfuck. But I don't think they went as far as making it THIS messy.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but we'd need more proof about the client reverse engineering. Proof that this is actually how it worked, and not just "the function was in the client, therefore it must be how it worked".
- The code could be in the client but not actually used, dead or test code.
- The code could be in the client and actually used, but not be the same as the one in the server - we don't know if this code was actually SHARED with the server.
It all boils down to "do the admins want to nerf channeling on P99 or not, even if it would significantly and negatively impact most/all casting classes in order to make a few select ayatollahs happy?".
|
So probably not per-hit I agree, but being bashed or stunned instantly cancels your casting. I mean again, I don't have this stuff in front of me, I've never looked at the client code or much of the eqemu code, but given laziness and simplicity it wouldn't surprise me if they basically just copied a bunch of stuff off their server code into the client and called it a day.
In other words it wouldn't shock me if the channeling code existed alongside other relevant things they put into the client.
Is it stale? Maybe, I would say with confidence that it's not arbitrary, it's not like they just wrote some channeling code in the client that they had no intention of using on their back end. So if anything, it would be stale, but that means it did work that way at some point. And, I think in cases like this, it would be more correct to put the onus on proving this
isn't how it worked. Like, we know our existing channeling mechanics aren't classic the code was just yolo'd 20 years ago or whatever.