Hit Detection

Comments

  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    A couple of times ive had teammates kill the guy dealing the damage and save me when frozen to the spot and I survived with 1 health.
    Also many times I get frozen before I start taking damage but I always die.
    Whether I die or not seems irrelevant it completely spoils the game when most gun fights I just get frozen to spot, whats the point in even playing the game when in the best moments of about to get a shoot out going with other players I just get frozen to the spot and can't do anything other than await my predetermined death. It's BS of the highest level.
  • Mearen1911
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.

    I don't know why I bother responding.
  • Mearen1911
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.

    I don't know why I bother responding.

    I don't either since you're not adding anything to the conversation.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.

    I don't know why I bother responding.

    I don't either since you're not adding anything to the conversation.

    Look dude, I am trying to help. You not posting footage really doesn't help your cause.

    At all.

    I know it's easier to say "some invisible guy killed me", but one lone voice on the forums with no proof is almost guaranteed to be ignored.

    I don't want your issue to be ignored.
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.

    I don't know why I bother responding.

    I don't either since you're not adding anything to the conversation.

    Dude, King knows his ****. You should post the vid & let it be seen.
  • denjoga
    607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Well firstly, did you happen to record?
    I can't remember, I'll check next time I turn the console on.

    I should note that I do remember considering hitting the record button and thinking that it would be pointless since I didn't have the net graph on - just don't remember if I decided to record it anyway.

    Most times, when something glitchy happens and I consider recording, I hear an annoying little voice in the back of my head telling me that my video is useless w/out the graph (which I refuse to use unless and until they make it far less obtrusive) or that the issue I'm considering recording is probably the fault of my own connection - nodes and hops and bloat, oh my - and that I'll have to work to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't before any video will be considered valid, and I just say, "frak it, not worth it."

    It's worth considering, by those who claim to have only the best interests of the quality of the game in mind (not talking about you, King), whether their standards of proof and quickness to dismiss and invalidate any proffered examples with extreme prejudice may do more harm than good, in terms of gathering data, by ultimately discouraging people from sharing their experiences at all and "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

    Just something to think about.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2017
    denjoga wrote: »
    Well firstly, did you happen to record?
    I can't remember, I'll check next time I turn the console on.

    I should note that I do remember considering hitting the record button and thinking that it would be pointless since I didn't have the net graph on - just don't remember if I decided to record it anyway.

    Most times, when something glitchy happens and I consider recording, I hear an annoying little voice in the back of my head telling me that my video is useless w/out the graph (which I refuse to use unless and until they make it far less obtrusive) or that the issue I'm considering recording is probably the fault of my own connection - nodes and hops and bloat, oh my - and that I'll have to work to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't before any video will be considered valid, and I just say, "frak it, not worth it."

    It's worth considering, by those who claim to have only the best interests of the quality of the game in mind (not talking about you, King), whether their standards of proof and quickness to dismiss and invalidate any proffered examples with extreme prejudice may do more harm than good, in terms of gathering data, by ultimately discouraging people from sharing their experiences at all and "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

    Just something to think about.

    I agree, some of the "Armchair QA" floating around does not benefit us, and players should remember that we all impart heavy bias, whether willingly or unwillingly.

    Regarding the netgraph, it is important for sure, but since Mischkag made the network warning icons permanent there is no way for a poor connection to masquerade as a lowly latent stable client. With this in mind, footage without the netgraph is more valuable than it was previously.

    Do not let the bias of others stop you from reporting issues, especially when some spend more time on the forums than they do ingame.

    @SMithERs228

    Asking a dev to do QA work, is like asking someone to pick up a second full time job when they are already pushing overtime. We need to be reasonable.
  • SMithERs228
    38 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    King, I mean you no offense as I know you're trying to help but I really think it's a lost cause. EA obviously thinks it's good enough.
  • MAGNUM_MU5TACHE
    1200 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hit detection on trench fighter plane is broken since last patch.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    King, I mean you no offense as I know you're trying to help but I really think it's a lost cause. EA obviously thinks it's good enough.

    I totally empathize with your position, but I refuse to believe that the individuals at DICE don't want to offer consistent quality across all platforms and modes.

    EA might think it's good enough, which is why I talk to individuals who do care.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I believe the dev said its a compromise, if the late/missing packets weren't compensated for then that player would loose the actions/damage that packet contained the game would be unplayable for that player even though that would be the fair logical way to do it have a cap on the missing/ delayed packets then reject them.
    From experience theres a large amount of players playing this game with poorly optimised/ bad connections most so bad the server doesn't know where to place there character models because it hasn't received any valid data in a long time, all other fps shooters run the same backwards netcodes that compensate for lost/late data so if battlefield was to start rejecting the late/lost data a large amount of the playerbase would complain and move to the other fps shooters where there data loss is still compensated for giving them a much better experience, sure battlefield would run like a dream for players with good connections but from experience I think were in the minority.
    The best compromise would be ping locked servers I can't see them ever reversing the netcode so ping locked servers is the best hope.
  • skane657
    8 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I'm having big time hit detection issues since last patch!! Never had a problem before. In North America on east coast. Tried different servers etc etc. The model 10 shotguns work fine but the m97 shotguns don't work at all more than half the time. I literally walked up behind an enemy player that was prone sniping and pointed my shotgun at center mass and unloaded all 5 shots.....didn't get one hit marker and the other player didn't start to move until shot 4 or 5. Also I've been trying to complete both the 15 kills in one round with the m97 trench gun hunter AND the 5 head shots in one round with the Russian sniper rifle and the count either doesn't work at all or gets halfway through and just sticks there. It's not my connection or ping. Posted a comment on you tube at it earlier today and had at least a dozen people agree that it's happening to them now also.
  • Godhates1234
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    We all sit here and are frustrated over the hit detection. And what are Dice doing? Nothing about this issues i think.
  • XXxx_ABH_xxXX
    573 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 2017
    New issue here. I dont know if it is related to hit reg. No damage at all done. PS4. It happened mid match after some desync, server side problem indicators.

    Video:
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I believe the dev said its a compromise, if the late/missing packets weren't compensated for then that player would loose the actions/damage that packet contained the game would be unplayable for that player even though that would be the fair logical way to do it have a cap on the missing/ delayed packets then reject them.
    From experience theres a large amount of players playing this game with poorly optimised/ bad connections most so bad the server doesn't know where to place there character models because it hasn't received any valid data in a long time, all other fps shooters run the same backwards netcodes that compensate for lost/late data so if battlefield was to start rejecting the late/lost data a large amount of the playerbase would complain and move to the other fps shooters where there data loss is still compensated for giving them a much better experience, sure battlefield would run like a dream for players with good connections but from experience I think were in the minority.
    The best compromise would be ping locked servers I can't see them ever reversing the netcode so ping locked servers is the best hope.

    The vast majority of players in North America are well under 100ms with their connections.

    I am not asking them to revert the netcode, as I feel there have ALWAYS been problems in BF and actually really appreciate the effort into improving the networking.

    I am simply asking for things to function properly for low ping, THERE IS NOTHING INHERENT WITH SERVERSIDE HIT DETECTION THAT SHOULD AFFECT LOW PING PLAYERS MOVEMENT TO CORRELATE WITH LOSSY AND LATE DAMAGE.

    I don't think anyone questions that dual server sets (restricted/unrestricted) are the best possible solution, unfortunately DICE did not prioritize such a feature, hopefully that will change in the future.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The vast majority of players in North America are well under 100ms with their connections.

    I am not asking them to revert the netcode, as I feel there have ALWAYS been problems in BF and actually really appreciate the effort into improving the networking.

    I am simply asking for things to function properly for low ping,

    Going off the scoreboard pings the majority is under 100ms , but the scoreboard pings don't show packet loss until its more serve than you get the fluctuating pings. The server has to wait for a re-sent packet when a packet is lost even on a low latency connection that packet would be late and out - of -sync but the data still applied in game causing de sync despite the low ping.

    Reverting the netcode or separating the high and low ping players is the only way by the physics of the internet the game is ever going to function properly for low latency players
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The vast majority of players in North America are well under 100ms with their connections.

    I am not asking them to revert the netcode, as I feel there have ALWAYS been problems in BF and actually really appreciate the effort into improving the networking.

    I am simply asking for things to function properly for low ping,

    Going off the scoreboard pings the majority is under 100ms , but the scoreboard pings don't show packet loss until its more serve than you get the fluctuating pings. The server has to wait for a re-sent packet when a packet is lost even on a low latency connection that packet would be late and out - of -sync but the data still applied in game causing de sync despite the low ping.

    Reverting the netcode or separating the high and low ping players is the only way by the physics of the internet the game is ever going to function properly for low latency players

    I do not understand what you think they are going to revert to.

    Bf has always had issues rationalizing desync.

    I'm not buying into the theory that things used to be so great, because I've been having issues the whole time.
Sign In or Register to comment.