Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by uyzstvqs 254 days ago
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive was also able to handle 128 TPS just fine. They just chose to never implement it in official matchmaking (64 TPS). It did work very smoothly on community servers.

Counter-Strike 2 implements a controversial "sub tick" system on top of 64 TPS. It is not comparable to actual 128 TPS, and often worse than standard 64 TPS in practice.
1 comments
forrestthewoods 254 days ago
Lots of things work fine when you throw twice as many dollars at them. It’s not a matter of it working or not. It’s a matter of economics.

Most game servers are single threaded because the goal is to support the maximum number of players per dollar.

A community server doesn’t mind throwing more compute dollars to support more players or higher tick rate. When you have one million concurrent players - as CounterStrike sometimes does - the choice may be different.

link
uyzstvqs 254 days ago
The reason is actually related to accessibility for players whose clients can't keep up with 128 tick.[0]

[0] https://x.com/basisspace/status/993278875349041152

link
Dylan16807 254 days ago
Sure, twice as many dollars in the immediate term. In the context of a particular tick rate being decade(s) old, it's more like deciding whether you can host 50x or 100x as many players per dollar of infrastructure. The upside of a higher tick rate grows as computers and connections improve and the downside shrinks semi-exponentially.
link
forrestthewoods 254 days ago
Also twice as many dollars in the future term! The downside very much does not decrease “exponentially”.

It would be interesting to know what Valve’s server costs look like over time. They definitely spend the pretty penny. And any business would prefer to spend one penny rather than two.

link
Dylan16807 254 days ago
> Also twice as many dollars in the future term! The downside very much does not decrease “exponentially”.

The downside measured in dollars continues to decrease exponentially. If it's $100 today, soon it will be $30. It's still "twice", but the thing you're twice-ing is smaller and smaller and smaller.

link
philipallstar 254 days ago
I'm not sure this is true any more. Long gone are the late 90s when computing power per dollar would increase that fast.
link
Dylan16807 254 days ago
Comparing an Epyc 7763 from 2021 and a 9965 from 2024, the newer chip is something like 35% cheaper and faster, on a per-core basis.

We're still making good progress.

link