EPTIf turn rate is only the number of “slots” each second of game time is divided into for the purpose of synchronizing and communicating game actions with the other participants in a multiplayer game, it would seem there must also be a decision about latency times involved here that is independent of turn rate. Even for a game between two Koreans both living in Seoul, I believe the game would need to implement a “latency” of a length equal to or higher than at least one "turn" to allow for the communicating of all the actions executed within one “turn” to reach and be acknowledged by the opposing player in time for the “turn” in which they are supposed to be executed.
If turn rate 16 means there are 16 such slots within a game second, each with a length of 62.5 milliseconds (1000/16), this would mean that the various actions performed by our two Koreans within the first “turn” of a game second using a tr16 setting would need to reach the other player well in time for turn number three, which would start 125 milliseconds into this game second. In this scenario, they would experience delay times of only between around 62.5 to 125 milliseconds from action to execution.
This latency setting of “one skipped turn” would require an internet connection between the two players that very consistently is able to send information from one player to the other in 31.25 milliseconds or less (a ping of 62.5 ms). If the players above within the first 31.25 milliseconds of turn number two have not yet received the actions from the other player’s previous turn, the game would need to withhold (and also to communicate this decision to withhold) permission for turn number three to start, and the game would “lag” until the connection is brought up again to this 31.25 millisecond transfer time / 62.5 millisecond ping standard.
Obviously, not all players are living in a sufficiently close proximity to allow for a ping of less than 62.5 ms. So more latency needs to be introduced in order to ensure a lag free gaming experience. These days there is a lot of talk about turn rate, but reducing this from 16 to 12 would still require a ping of 83.3 ms or less for lag free “1 turn skipped” gaming, and reducing it further to 8 would still require a ping of 125. In fact, I believe tr4 with one turn skipped is still too fast to be lag free for pings higher than 250ms.
This brings me back to my question: Are there any reasons for not locking turn rate to 24, and resolving the issue of lag through “turn skipping” alone? I believe this can be achieved by introducing a more precise and transparent latency setting than the present “low, high and extra high latency”, that would enable adjusting latency only through skipping a sufficient, but not higher than necessary, number of “turns” between the one in which an action is ordered, and the one in which it is executed.This would enable a lag free gaming experience even for players with a high-ish ping between them.
---
tl;dr: Fighting lag through adjusting latency by changing turn rates is a bad idea because:
a) The concept of turn rate and how it affects latency is hard to understand
b) Whatever turn rate is utilized, the response times will be higher than necessary
Instead, the turn rate should always stay at 24, and lag in higher ping scenarios should be combated by increasing the number of frames skipped between the turn in which an action is ordered, and the turn in which it is executed.
