Thanks for being understanding in regards to bringing me up to speed with where the discussion has been. I could have gone through pages 7 through 15 of the discussion, but within pages 1-6 and 16-17, what I mentioned was only touched upon once but there are more thankyou posts than I cared to go through. Not that you don't deserve them and not to be a prick, but I want to get to the heart of the issue.
In any case, the fact that the kdr variable is within the discussion raises a red flag to me. It means that I'm not the only one questioning when the lag comp issue comes into play.
And that question is play because to me, a "lag free environment" is within a single console, not necessarily on a LAN. Did you observe these disparities within split screen on a single, unconnected console?
edit - Oh, btw, there is no doubt in my mind that the lag comp variable is not "fully" dynamic. What I'm driving at here is that it only has to have a small amount of static - a very small amount - in order to be effective. If it is small enough, 99% of the community will never catch it. But players that are online 500+ hours a year playing video games will. In the mean time, and I dare say this, it brings a great sense of "fun" to that 99% because all of a sudden they can take on the big dogs and the game "feels" balanced to them.
edit 2 - In fact, it doesn't have to be static at all. And it does not have to be based upon kdr necessarily, either. It could be coded trigger that reacts to ppm, kdr, total kills, total points, wlr - any number of single triggers or combination of triggers.
I would call anyone that suggested this a complete nut job were it not for several things. First of all, BO2 is using a new engine and new code. That's per Ghandi's comments in the MW3 title update discussion thread. That's one thing. Second, people were screaming to have the host be given lag advantage for years and the logic behind the "community" demands seemed reasonable. The host has "paid more" for his quality connection; the host having the advantage assures that only one player in the lobby has an "unfair" advantage instead of multiple people, etc, etc, blah, blah. I can too easily see ATVI having TA and IW make such an adjustment with the caveat that there be a trigger within the system that prevented host from totally devastating lobby after lobby. What you are showing in that OP video fits the bill to a T.
First of all, it becomes a relationship, as you say, between the host and the worst ping in the lobby. That gives the host an advantage against half the lobby and a disadvantage against the remaining 5 players. Teams being evenly divided, the game is "balanced." At the same time, ATVI can legitimately say that the host has the advantage. As an insurance policy, trigger lag if the host begins to dominate. Boom, I've got a game 99% of the community believes is balanced when, in fact, this would be the most atrocious thing to have ever happened in the gaming world.
