[Weird Idea] - Ops and XP / lag

[Galileo]

OK, so I don't know much about computers and how netcode works and all that stuff. So this might be totally stupid.

Complaints about netcode and lag are common place on the in game channels. I was thinking about the server / client data that needs to be sent / received and had a small thought. If (*huge* assumptions here) we assume that the client / server data exchange contains:

1. Positional data
2. Damage data
3. XP Data

May be some others...dunno. I noticed (whilst Rhinoing) that the XP bar doesn't go up client side until a small delay - as in some kind of server communication as both client and server work out the XP you just got.

If we could remove the XP data transfer from Ops, would this cut the lag in that zone? i.e. Less bandwidth / data needed for each client in the zone.
Would that quicken it up?

I mean, who Op wars for XP?

I was thinking something like after the first layer goes down, then for one hour (real-time) the zone is considered "Contested" and has all XP removed/non-calculated (would only affect the zone, not zones coming off it - So Chaos caves, Gravis swampcave would be un-affected).

Obviously some zones would be hurt (Cycrow, Gabanium) but most Op zones aren't levelling zones.

Just a random idea.

Cheers

[giga191]

most of the lag is caused by anti cheat measures, since most stuff is now serverside

[Roc-a-fella]

I thought cutting the map into zones was supposed to REDUCE lag.

[Apocalypsox]

people might not op war for XP..but alot of Op zones are good for leveling. multiple op zones are good for firemobbing. (I.E Cycrow)....so...yah'no..

[Roc-a-fella]

i remember when crp and cycrow were two different zones.... those were the days

[giga191]

I thought cutting the map into zones was supposed to REDUCE lag. not really, it mostly made like that because NC1 was old, and there weren't any games which loaded new scenery as you ran.

[Brammers]

Turn off the XP data transfer when in an op-war?

I doubt leaving that information out of the TCP/UDP packets would make much difference, since all the client needs to know is how much XP the main stats have to display it, and that's only probably 5 x 32bits of information.