UK servers [Megathread]

Comments

  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ackers75 said:
    ackers75 said:


    Rev0verDrive wrote: »
    ackers75 said:

    Why on earth are some players flickering and stuttering when I am aiming down sight at distance.







    What is this utter disgrace of a game!



    Simply don’t care how many hours people have pumped into this game, refunds should be due!



    update frequency degrades over distance. @ 200m you are updated at roughly 3Hz. Once every 333.33ms ... stuttering would be server corrections being made to position.



    Thanks rev



    I seem to remember now devs mentioning a 30hz bubble around the player or something


    Here's BF1's setup. I'm pretty confident they use the same replication interleave for BFV.

    ** The Cone represents your Frustum (FOV).
    ** The Inside HFU radius (green) is a hemisphere.
    ** The outside HFU radius (light grey) is a hemisphere.




    Thanks again rev for the info it’s very much appreciated
    No probs. My discord channel is linked in my sig. We mainly do game dev stuff there, so if you have questions or just want to hang out drop on by.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @RevOverDrive

    DICE could do with you expertise buddy. I'm sure you can sort out the game for them!
  • ackers75
    2516 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 said:


    Rev0verDrive wrote: »
    ackers75 said:





    Rev0verDrive wrote: »

    ackers75 said:



    Why on earth are some players flickering and stuttering when I am aiming down sight at distance.















    What is this utter disgrace of a game!







    Simply don’t care how many hours people have pumped into this game, refunds should be due!







    update frequency degrades over distance. @ 200m you are updated at roughly 3Hz. Once every 333.33ms ... stuttering would be server corrections being made to position.







    Thanks rev







    I seem to remember now devs mentioning a 30hz bubble around the player or something





    Here's BF1's setup. I'm pretty confident they use the same replication interleave for BFV.



    ** The Cone represents your Frustum (FOV).

    ** The Inside HFU radius (green) is a hemisphere.

    ** The outside HFU radius (light grey) is a hemisphere.











    Thanks again rev for the info it’s very much appreciated

    No probs. My discord channel is linked in my sig. We mainly do game dev stuff there, so if you have questions or just want to hang out drop on by.

    Will do, thanks very much pal
  • colour123k
    4 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    warslag said:
    Epthy said:
    warslag said:
    I suppose one good thing about this is that if you don't like Battlefield V at least it isn't polluting the UK with its presence anymore.

    what you mean?
    There's no UK servers.
    When then this happen have not played in a month, came on to play the new map and german server is laggy mess and characters are freezing and shots don't register. They better bring back the servers in the UK or not buying the next game. Battlefield needs decent servers.
  • warslag
    1598 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited May 2019
    warslag said:
    Well it's just a crap situation compared to playing on servers rented from 3rd party providers. Because the people who chose to rent those servers did so because they were building clans and communities which they loved. And you can't replace they with a data center. That's what it boils down to.

    I believe the "netcode" (I really hate this word) is designed to to run on servers in data centres. "Netcode" is a 'management tool' (hehe) for managing the expectations of players when they are amassed in data centers. It's so someone with a high ping can play with players with a low ping. The experience for both players is worse than playing on a locally rented clan server.

    You can't make a Battlefield that compares to the clan server experience it just add so much to the game. I play Apex and I have to say it is a kind of sterile and psychopathic environment. Battlefield isn't really that much different. Not now anyway. 

    I'm curious as to where you think community servers are run from? In Data centers! If EA/DICE opened 3rd party servers the netcode wouldn't change. Only the locations of servers and the companies that hosted them. "Locations" are key. Closer server == lower ping, less variance and lower loss. This increases stability, performance and precision.

    High pings shouldn't be playing with low pings .... ever. A server with only low pings never has issues.
    I'm talking about renting servers from a UK family run business like Multiplay instead of EA who gets them from Amazon. It's a completely different relationship that the renter has with a company like that. Plus renting a server off EA you still get the same netcode.

    Whatever science you want to blind us with it doesn't change the fact that there are less data centres now and the "netcode" is only going to change in order to cope with that strategy if at all.

    Maths and science that explains what's best for players doesn't have any influence with big businesses or they wouldn't have changed it from BF2 to the way it is now.
    Post edited by warslag on
  • NLBartmaN
    3967 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    tbh whether the servers are in london or jrankfurt there shouldnt be issues.
    why you only show 1 latency when logic says theres two data streams is beyond belief.
    Look EA are a multi billion dollar company and have royally messed up.

    yes the internet has chaged form way back with way more cables having been layed ...to cope.

    but this means many more possible routes.
    so testing two data streams and applying two lag comp figures is the right thing to make sure your more accurate.


    now i dont knwo enough about the NAT variants and if isp can block certain tests and just test the start of the wan ip in some data centre....(which incidentally will cause differences and inaccuracy too).

    net result will be i get shot before i see my opponent or the other way round...now this does happen on cod now which in infuriating when i see the replay....you do show replays on BF V?

    anyway...hope you understand this.
    no gamer seems to or very few so cant get to make inroads into EA trying to understand....

    In a nutshell the one latency shown on your netgraph suggests your testing latency incorrecty...the further away will mean some players are gonna get dodgy gameplay.

    i will check back from time to time on this thread....if i see EA has acknowledged this is an issue and correct it i may buy V....good luck.



    DICE/EA do not have any control over data routing whatsoever. You need to contact AWS for more information on their routing.

    The following links provide "reachability" IP's for testing Ping and Tracert for AWS EC2 and GameLift servers.

    http://ec2-reachability.amazonaws.com/
    https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region

    Further information on AWS GameLift : https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/faq/

    Data Centers use "Peering". Buying direct connections to many tier 1 providers, such as VerizonAT&TSprintGTT/tinetVerio/NTTCenturyLink, and Telia, and choosing the best path to reach clients through a proprietary system.

    You may also want to ask AWS directly about their Peering.

    The route in is typically the route out, unless there's congestion, or the route out is the better option.

    Each Gateway (HOP) along the route can redirect packets onto alternative routes.

    ---------

    Ping in-game does not use ICMP. Each game data packet you send is timestamped in the header. The server and the client read those timestamps to calculate RTT.
    ((float) send time - (float) receive time) * 2 + (float) processing time = ceil(Ping).

    The travel time of an ICMP packet is irrelevant. ICMP does not have a payload ..aka Game data. Game data packets (relevant) are what's used for ping and they are UDP.

    *** Note
    * The network graph is only updated once per second. Processing ping, loss etc is low priority. This may add ~1ms to overall ping values displayed.

    * IP Fragmentation ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_fragmentation
    Although game developers try to keep payloads as well as overall packet byte sizes low they can still be fragmented in route. If a packet is fragmented it can add toward ping times.

    --------

    FYI there are multiple virtual connections (UDP) as well as multiple direct connections (TCP).
    • Game Session, EA Backend, MM
    • Client -> Server movement updates (primary game data)
    • Client -> Server RPC's (kit changes, healing etc)
    • Server -> Client movement updates/corrections (opponent and self - various update rates)
    • Scoreboard
    • Network graph
    • text Chat
    • Kill feed
    • voip
    • etc ...

    Always great to see your pro comments.

    Next to a ping limit, what do you think is going on right now why things are so bad?

    In BF1 you also had high pingers on servers, but it was not as bad as now.

    Is it a problem at AWS? Netcode has changed? Too many virtual servers on each fysical server? TTK too low for console?
    Much more processed server side? something else or a combination of it all?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    Always great to see your pro comments.

    Next to a ping limit, what do you think is going on right now why things are so bad?

    In BF1 you also had high pingers on servers, but it was not as bad as now.

    Is it a problem at AWS? Netcode has changed? Too many virtual servers on each fysical server? TTK too low for console?
    Much more processed server side? something else or a combination of it all?
    I highly doubt the issues at hand are caused by AWS (hardware,software,network infrastructure etc). And I'm highly confident AWS wouldn't allow overburdening/misuse of a physical server (their hardware). So you can pretty much eliminate them and their service from the equation.

    As far as a netcode change ... no clue. I wouldn't know for a fact unless DICE or Mischkag posted about it. Which I haven't seen other than TTD replication tweaks (February patch). But as a whole I don't think any major component from the BF1 netcode has changed in BFV.

    As noted in other posts the best way to narrow down / troubleshoot the issues is to have all players on the server at low and stable pings (sub 60ms). This will be doable come rental release. You'll just need a large group of players dedicated to testing. I'm already confident in the results.

    Additional note....

    Shots and Damage receival aren't tick based. They are RPC event based. This simply means they are processed and sent immediately....not batched and sent at ticks.
  • JPhysics
    804 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Well there is a noticeable difference which occurred exactly when they switched from UK to Frankfurt servers, where server performance feels worse than you would expect simply because of being re-routed to Germany.   I think being consumers we don't expect to be on the receiving end of the consequences of this decision, the cause is something that Dice should be looking into.  Whilst it might be unlikely that the actual AWS hardware is the cause, I wouldn't eliminate it altogether unless comprehensive testing is done.
    If it is ISP routing or hop related, then it must impact a number of mainstream internet providers because alot of UK players have noticed it AND other European players who previously use to play on UK servers.  Naturally there is little we can do about that, but Dice can by reverting back to UK servers.   This is also the logical remedy if it concludes that Battlefield servers are going to pot when the high/unstable pings have a negative impact on the game, given every European player is now in Frankfurt we have already seen the mean ping increase, this what I think the root of the problem is, but Dice aren't going to go back on this decision because they value match making times above the quality of gaming experience.  The sticky experience from the Frankfurt servers has been acknowledged by a wide range of players using them.
    -
    This one is for RevOverdrive.  Often the term netcode is thrown around, but am I right in saying it is basically a generic term for anything related to gaming networking, particularly the synchronisation between the server and the client, and there more there are many possible causes for bad netcode to be present?
    The ticks you refer to above are sent at the tick rate of the server, so the higher the tick rate the more responsive experience you will have?  Lesser tick rates increase the likely hood of the "one frame kill" experience?
    I've seen bad synchronisation with this game beyond any doubt, no idea what the causes it but would throw me off playing any game.  One example of this is when I am shot at from mid/long range by a player (G43 for example). I've received hit indicators from each shot and damaged taken off my health the instant I see the muzzle flash.  I can then track the tracer fire of the shot in slow-mo frame by frame, but I cannot evade the shots and they've already inflicted damage according to the server.  Same occurs in tanks, taking damage from shots which go over or behind me after moving yet I take the damage of the shot.  There are other examples but I wanted to mention one than is not often spoken about or perhaps not even recognised.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Tonight the game has hit new lows in playabilty. Stutter, lag, rubber-banding, hit reg all over the place even in SC
  • fisknyllet17
    1727 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Tonight the game has hit new lows in playabilty. Stutter, lag, rubber-banding, hit reg all over the place even in SC

    Yup
  • ackers75
    2516 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Tonight the game has hit new lows in playabilty. Stutter, lag, rubber-banding, hit reg all over the place even in SC

    I made a concerted effort to not bother tonight and probably for the foreseeable future.

    Having a blast on apex and planet side 2
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    warslag said:
    I'm talking about renting servers from a UK family run business like Multiplay instead of EA who gets them from Amazon. It's a completely different relationship that the renter has with a company like that. Plus renting a server off EA you still get the same netcode.

    Whatever science you want to blind us with it doesn't change the fact that there are less data centres now and the "netcode" is only going to change in order to cope with that strategy if at all.

    Maths and science that explains what's best for players doesn't have any influence with big businesses to they wouldn't have changed it from BF2 to the way it is now.

    Renting from Multiplay, NFO, GameServer.com etc doesn't result in "different" netcode. The only upside is you get more choice in server hosting locations. Which potentially lowers your ping. But it's only better if "ALL" players on the server have a low ping. You can rent a server in NY, Dallas, Chicago, London etc, but if you allow for global play (no ping limit) you'll experience the same issues 100% of the time.

    BF4 offers 3rd party rentals from private GSP's, yet you still get: insta deaths, one frame deaths, hits behind cover, denied hits etc. But this only happens when the server is inundated with bad connections. You take a BF4 server and ping limit it and it's flawless.

    For BF4 you can use Latency Manager plugin for procon. https://forum.myrcon.com/showthread.php?5782-Latency-Manager-(1-0-1-16)-January-2017

    =============
    When rentals come for BFV you can easily start one up for free and kick players over 60ms to test this.

    If that's too much math and science for you I don't know what else to tell you.
  • UrinDenialP
    144 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    tbh whether the servers are in london or jrankfurt there shouldnt be issues.
    why you only show 1 latency when logic says theres two data streams is beyond belief.
    Look EA are a multi billion dollar company and have royally messed up.

    yes the internet has chaged form way back with way more cables having been layed ...to cope.

    but this means many more possible routes.
    so testing two data streams and applying two lag comp figures is the right thing to make sure your more accurate.


    now i dont knwo enough about the NAT variants and if isp can block certain tests and just test the start of the wan ip in some data centre....(which incidentally will cause differences and inaccuracy too).

    net result will be i get shot before i see my opponent or the other way round...now this does happen on cod now which in infuriating when i see the replay....you do show replays on BF V?

    anyway...hope you understand this.
    no gamer seems to or very few so cant get to make inroads into EA trying to understand....

    In a nutshell the one latency shown on your netgraph suggests your testing latency incorrecty...the further away will mean some players are gonna get dodgy gameplay.

    i will check back from time to time on this thread....if i see EA has acknowledged this is an issue and correct it i may buy V....good luck.



    DICE/EA do not have any control over data routing whatsoever. You need to contact AWS for more information on their routing.

    The following links provide "reachability" IP's for testing Ping and Tracert for AWS EC2 and GameLift servers.

    http://ec2-reachability.amazonaws.com/
    https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region

    Further information on AWS GameLift : https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/faq/

    Data Centers use "Peering". Buying direct connections to many tier 1 providers, such as VerizonAT&TSprintGTT/tinetVerio/NTTCenturyLink, and Telia, and choosing the best path to reach clients through a proprietary system.

    You may also want to ask AWS directly about their Peering.

    The route in is typically the route out, unless there's congestion, or the route out is the better option.

    Each Gateway (HOP) along the route can redirect packets onto alternative routes.

    ---------

    Ping in-game does not use ICMP. Each game data packet you send is timestamped in the header. The server and the client read those timestamps to calculate RTT.
    ((float) send time - (float) receive time) * 2 + (float) processing time = ceil(Ping).

    The travel time of an ICMP packet is irrelevant. ICMP does not have a payload ..aka Game data. Game data packets (relevant) are what's used for ping and they are UDP.

    *** Note
    * The network graph is only updated once per second. Processing ping, loss etc is low priority. This may add ~1ms to overall ping values displayed.

    * IP Fragmentation ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_fragmentation
    Although game developers try to keep payloads as well as overall packet byte sizes low they can still be fragmented in route. If a packet is fragmented it can add toward ping times.

    --------

    FYI there are multiple virtual connections (UDP) as well as multiple direct connections (TCP).
    • Game Session, EA Backend, MM
    • Client -> Server movement updates (primary game data)
    • Client -> Server RPC's (kit changes, healing etc)
    • Server -> Client movement updates/corrections (opponent and self - various update rates)
    • Scoreboard
    • Network graph
    • text Chat
    • Kill feed
    • voip
    • etc ...

    Thanks for this.
    Only had a brief look as its late.

    Was kind of hoping there was some info of testing from those locations to an ip even if it could only be icmp....i know irrelevant because of udp and packet load but mainly to just compare the route.

    imo this is vital
  • OskooI_007
    1050 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    Always great to see your pro comments.

    Next to a ping limit, what do you think is going on right now why things are so bad?

    In BF1 you also had high pingers on servers, but it was not as bad as now.

    Is it a problem at AWS? Netcode has changed? Too many virtual servers on each fysical server? TTK too low for console?
    Much more processed server side? something else or a combination of it all?

    DICE made guns more accurate in BFV. Bullet spread was virtually eliminated in BFV and replaced with the new recoil system.

    Most guns in BFV have low recoil so most bullets are landing on target. Causing 5-6 bullets to slam into players and kill them in 200 milliseconds. Getting 5 damage indicators in the span of 200ms is going to feel like a insta-death.

    The insta-death feeling happens in BF1 too, but usually from prone LMG players using bipods. Allowing them to fire full auto with minimal recoil and spread.

    With BFV's more accurate weapons, it's like everyone is shooting laser beams at 600+ rounds per minute. By the time you get the first damage indicator, a train of bullets are right behind it ready to slam into you.

    To allow players time to react to damage indicators, either recoil or spread needs to be increased. The rate of fire on weapons reduced. Or bullet damage reduced.

    Personally, I would add more spread and reduce the rate of fire.
  • GrumbleSG9
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Rev0verDrive Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and explain things like tickrate. Reading your comments is helping me to develop a basic (very basic) understanding of topics that normally go over my head.
  • JPhysics
    804 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thanks for the input, I appreciate the info there RevOverdrive  :)
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    @Rev0verDrive Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and explain things like tickrate. Reading your comments is helping me to develop a basic (very basic) understanding of topics that normally go over my head.

    Glad it helps. Always welcome to join discord. I have plenty of in engine demos that cover most topics.
  • NLBartmaN
    3967 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Renting from Multiplay, NFO, GameServer.com etc doesn't result in "different" netcode. The only upside is you get more choice in server hosting locations. Which potentially lowers your ping. But it's only better if "ALL" players on the server have a low ping. You can rent a server in NY, Dallas, Chicago, London etc, but if you allow for global play (no ping limit) you'll experience the same issues 100% of the time.

    BF4 offers 3rd party rentals from private GSP's, yet you still get: insta deaths, one frame deaths, hits behind cover, denied hits etc. But this only happens when the server is inundated with bad connections. You take a BF4 server and ping limit it and it's flawless.

    For BF4 you can use Latency Manager plugin for procon. https://forum.myrcon.com/showthread.php?5782-Latency-Manager-(1-0-1-16)-January-2017

    =============
    When rentals come for BFV you can easily start one up for free and kick players over 60ms to test this.
    The strange thing about this is: even on small game modes (16-32 players) and all having a ping below 60ms the game feels like crap, ttd bug still happening and shots not registering, footsteps missing, etc.

    There might be one or more players with lots of latency variation, but all below 60ms ping.

    So maybe a ping limit/kicking all players with ping above 60ms might fix everything ...

    What else can it be?

    Also strange is: I changed the DNS of my PS4 from the one of my ISP to a different one (the fastest/best that came out of an app to test that) and the game feels a lot better, even menus load faster etc, what does that tell you?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Thanks for this.
    Only had a brief look as its late.

    Was kind of hoping there was some info of testing from those locations to an ip even if it could only be icmp....i know irrelevant because of udp and packet load but mainly to just compare the route.

    imo this is vital
    The links provided give you pingable and tracert friendly IP's to AWS EC2 and GameLift servers.

    The actual server you play on more than likely will not respond to ICMP (ping/tracert). Most game servers regardless the game/company do this. Instead they use a PingSite at the datacenter for server browser based pinging.

    Here's a step by step guide I did for the pubg community. https://forums.pubg.com/topic/294576-server-location-identification-how-to/
    Once you get the IP you may have to run a ping on it to get the actual IP. From there you can use geolocation services to get region or manually sift through ranges on the AWS reachability page.

    For example .... ec2.34.226.206.37.compute-1.amazonaws.com
    IP is 34.226.206.37 which is US-East-1 (Ashburn, VA)
    For testing I would use 34.224.0.252 on the AWS Reachability page and gamelift.us-east-1.amazonaws.com (52.46.135.130) for the gamelift servers.

This discussion has been closed.