Let’s clarify a few things.
First, I never claimed I was a game dev — quite the opposite, I said I *wasn’t*. But that doesn’t mean I can’t think critically or observe real behavior over hundreds of hours. And I’m not asserting things blindly — I **referenced known mechanisms** that exist in modern games, like Rainbow Six Siege, where **developers explicitly stated** that **connection-based checks** are triggered when a player’s ping or stability is questionable.
You argue it would add server load — sure. But **why assume that means it doesn’t exist?** Did you verify? Why present it as a *fact* that such systems aren't used? That’s the core issue here.
You call me a hypocrite for “assuming,” but your whole argument basically comes down to:
> “Why would anyone design it that way? It’s inefficient.”
That’s not logic — that’s just wishful thinking.
---
About packet ranges:
You don’t need to be a developer to notice that in Game 1 the packets are consistently 200–300 bytes, and in Game 2 they’re 500–600 bytes — throughout the entire match.
That’s not just "more action in-game". That’s a **baseline shift**, which points to something systemic — not tied to player behavior.
---
Now about your videos — did you ever check the packets during those deaths?
Here's what I believe happened:
- The server was supposed to send you the enemy’s position, aim, and shot in **Tick1**.
- But instead, the system chose to send **irrelevant or incomplete data first** — something not directly related to your combat situation.
- The game had **part of the picture**, but not enough to render the enemy or your own death.
- So it waited — and only by **Tick4**, when the missing pieces arrived, it rendered everything at once: enemy appears + you die.
This isn’t about ping or packet loss.
It’s about the **game giving you the wrong or partial data**, which still needs to be **waited on and reassembled** before anything can be shown.
And here’s the key point:
Your **computer and hardware did their job 120%**.
Your system **instantly, accurately rendered everything** the moment it had enough data.
The issue isn’t what your PC showed — the issue is **what it was given to work with**.
And that’s entirely on the game engine and how that **network logic module** decided what to send first.
---
Now let me explain the **core of my theory**:
I believe modern games (especially ones like CS2 or Siege) use **dynamic packet splitting**, but the implementation **was not carefully designed**.
The way packets are split and prioritized **doesn’t align with gameplay-critical priorities**.
And frankly — I doubt the developer who wrote that system even considered fairness or concurrency.
They were likely tasked with writing a **module to assist players on unstable connections**, or **reduce server load**.
Did they think about what happens in a 64-tick, latency-sensitive match when the wrong info arrives first?
Probably not.
Their only concern was:
> “Keep the connection alive. Avoid disconnections.”
And they succeeded.
But at the cost of **delivering the wrong data first**, or **delaying critical information** — like your enemy’s actions — for no good reason.
---
So in your video example:
- The client didn’t get what it needed at Tick1.
- It got **partial or low-priority info**, and had to **wait for additional packets**.
- Rendering only started at Tick4, by which point the server had already processed your death.
- You saw the enemy *and* your death appear at once — but only *after* those skipped ticks — and had **no chance to respond**.
---
**TL;DR (if you skipped the above):**
> The game gave you either **the wrong** or **incomplete** data.
> It made you **wait for the rest** before rendering anything meaningful.
> Your PC and hardware responded perfectly — it rendered exactly what it received, as fast as possible.
> But what it received came late and incomplete — and **that’s the real problem**.
It’s not hardware.
It’s not power.
It’s not skill.
It’s **bad logic in how the game decides what to send, when, and in what order**.
**IMHO, this explains far more than magical “voltage ghosts” or golden power outlets.**
Again — I’m here for respectful discussion.
*Sorry if anything sounds off — I’m using a translator to write this in English.*
