Hit Detection

Comments

  • FlopTrain
    506 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    Okay, so I ran a UOTrace and my results came back perfect. This tells me there is nothing wrong with my connection or latency on my end. So what now? Can I go back to the correct assertion that the problem is with DICE and everyone else's connections ruining my gameplay?

    Yes, you can,..because that is what, is happening.

    We all know now, that there is nothing done to however poor a connection is, when it is lagging out a server.

    The fact that Dice/EA has pretty much admitted that they develop this game to run well for high ping, poor latency connections is inexcusable. This should not be happening.

    I know my connection is good,..why am I being punished for that!? And not offered any alternative options to play, with out poor connections ruining my experience?
  • Schmo13
    106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Okay, so I ran a UOTrace and my results came back perfect. This tells me there is nothing wrong with my connection or latency on my end. So what now? Can I go back to the correct assertion that the problem is with DICE and everyone else's connections ruining my gameplay?

    Man some of you guys are bitter. It was a question/suggestion. Never did I say you will find a solution by doing this. Just another tool at our disposal. So much drama and speculation here. What is so wrong about providing factual data on internet quality?
  • FlopTrain
    506 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Schmo13 wrote: »
    Okay, so I ran a UOTrace and my results came back perfect. This tells me there is nothing wrong with my connection or latency on my end. So what now? Can I go back to the correct assertion that the problem is with DICE and everyone else's connections ruining my gameplay?

    Man some of you guys are bitter. It was a question/suggestion. Never did I say you will find a solution by doing this. Just another tool at our disposal. So much drama and speculation here. What is so wrong about providing factual data on internet quality?

    Folks are bitter because they have been complaining about this for a decade and Dice/EA continues to do nothing to address the root of the problems.

    Also, funny how people in this thread continue to defend OoR connections.

    Latency equates to time. Fact- the further your locality to a server, the longer it will take your information to get there.

    Stop acting like this isn't an issue. OoR players and Dice/EA creating them by not providing proper regional server coverage, is one of the biggest problems this game has.
  • misisipiRivrRat
    1004 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    denjoga wrote: »
    Yes. Ultimately it is about connection quality more so than region, obviously.

    Can a player who is 10 miles from the server have a horrible connection?
    Of course.

    Can a player who is thousands of miles from the server have a good quality connection?
    Seems unlikely.

    So, in BF3 for example, when the server is running tolerably well and then suddenly it becomes unplayable at the same moment a squad joined who all had Japanese names and the flag of Japan as their emblem and are all total bullet sponges, I think it's a fair conclusion that those players are in Japan, intentionally playing far out of their region in order to gain an advantage.

    Could there have been legions of players in the eastern US playing in US East servers (e.g.) while manipulating their connections to cause lag and gain an advantage, who purposely disguise their accounts to appear to be from Japan or Brazil?

    Could there have been legions of players in the UK manipulating their connections to gain an advantage in EU servers, purposely disguising themselves as residents of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

    Sure, I guess so, but why?
    I think William of Ockham and his razor might have a problem with that explanation.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Early this morning jumped on a east us server and the server was horrible with all of the issues we all have experienced. There were 33 players with Japanese names. Now can I prove they were all from Japan? No I can't. But it would seem like the majority probably are. In any case I also agree with the guys saying a neighbor can be a problem to servers performance as much as someone playing oor. And until the dev posting here comes right out and says oor players do not effect the servers perfomance, I have to believe what I feel I see when I'm playing.
  • FlopTrain
    506 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    And until the dev posting here comes right out and says oor players do not effect the servers perfomance, I have to believe what I feel I see when I'm playing.

    I still wouldn't believe it, even if Dice said it doesn't. Because, I possess common sense, experience and logic.

    Also, devs have said high latency doesn't degrade servers. Which I still don't agree with.

    Folks on here took that quote from Dice an ran with it, thinking and saying you could play from the moon with no problems...
  • Michael_Seaman
    461 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Early this morning jumped on a east us server and the server was horrible with all of the issues we all have experienced. There were 33 players with Japanese names. Now can I prove they were all from Japan? No I can't. But it would seem like the majority probably are. In any case I also agree with the guys saying a neighbor can be a problem to servers performance as much as someone playing oor. And until the dev posting here comes right out and says oor players do not effect the servers perfomance, I have to believe what I feel I see when I'm playing.

    At some point, when the thousands of anecdotal stories lead to the same conclusion, it becomes safe to assume the conclusion is probably factual. When I can replicate the same scenario over and over again simply by playing out of region, then it becomes obvious to me what the issue is. Bottom line, if I play in my region US East, the game plays and runs horribly. When I play OOR in euro servers, the game runs much smoother and hit detection is vastly improved. This, from my observation, occurs 100% of the time.
  • denjoga
    607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Ok, so explain to me why someone 1000 miles away can't have a good quality connection.
    Um - the laws of physics maybe? Distance = latency.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Define what you think is good.
    Well, from this thread, I'd say less than 150ms ping.
    I know when I've played on EU servers, my ping is around 100ms and my k/d improves markedly (in-region my ping is ~10-30ms w/ 0 packet loss).
    Necessarily, someone else's k/d and general performance had to suffer for mine to improve and I'm sure there were players in the UK cursing me every time we met head to head and I won.
    I've only done this a few times in BF1, because it's a **** move.
    In BF3 I did it regularly because it was the only way I could get acceptable performance.


    So, what you're saying about South Americans is that they immigrate to the US and bring crappy internet with them???
    You're saying that all those players in US East servers in BF3 w/ BR in their names, who were clearly the cause of poor server performance, were all living in the east US and just happened to have far, far worse internet service than 99% of players who also lived in the east US and identified as American?

    lol Ok.
    Hey, our new president has a beautiful wall he'd like to sell you. The best wall. If you buy now, maybe he'll throw in a bridge or two.

  • Mosvalve
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Not to repeat myself, but I acknowledge the various issues you are reporting here. We do try to get the ping into the scoreboard for consoles, we do try to get the region locks going, we do improve the high ping player handling, we do make it harder for high ping players, we did fix a few hit detection bugs, we did improve the spotting, we did fix a few cheats and bugs. It is sad that you did not feel/were heard since BF3 and its more than time to get this fixed. Now the patching process takes a little too long atm but i will let you know once CTE is up and what changes are featured.
    As far as server performance goes. Knowing the code and testing the code, i cannot see a correlation between poor connections and increasing server performance. Does it make it a bit more inconsistent? Likely yes, but it wont have a real impact overall. Now granted, if people report that the server tick is running consistently above 16ms for PC, that is very bad and i am trying to figure out if this is datacenter specific or what else is causing that. Have a great weekend.

    So wait you fixed a cheat on console?
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2017
    denjoga wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Ok, so explain to me why someone 1000 miles away can't have a good quality connection.
    Um - the laws of physics maybe? Distance = latency.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Define what you think is good.
    Well, from this thread, I'd say less than 150ms ping.
    I know when I've played on EU servers, my ping is around 100ms and my k/d improves markedly (in-region my ping is ~10-30ms w/ 0 packet loss).
    Necessarily, someone else's k/d and general performance had to suffer for mine to improve and I'm sure there were players in the UK cursing me every time we met head to head and I won.
    I've only done this a few times in BF1, because it's a **** move.
    In BF3 I did it regularly because it was the only way I could get acceptable performance.


    So, what you're saying about South Americans is that they immigrate to the US and bring crappy internet with them???
    You're saying that all those players in US East servers in BF3 w/ BR in their names, who were clearly the cause of poor server performance, were all living in the east US and just happened to have far, far worse internet service than 99% of players who also lived in the east US and identified as American?

    lol Ok.
    Hey, our new president has a beautiful wall he'd like to sell you. The best wall. If you buy now, maybe he'll throw in a bridge or two.

    Latency is not the only consideration of good internet. Based on your definition there a person can have 125ms latency and 20% packetloss and be considered good. I get under 150ms latency to EU servers so in that definition again I have good internet, which will disprove Americans are ruining EU servers wouldn't it.

    Problem here is latency is not the issue, it's stable internet that matters. Having minimum packet loss, as little jitter as possible, and going through stable hops.

    UOTrace is a very good start to test your connection to EA servers but it doesn't test all situations and issues. Like in the situation if your testing from your wired PC and your PS4 is on the extreme edge of its signal strength, I believe its not gonna be able to see that.

    Just to be clear, not saying there are not issues, but fix the coding problems first because that is causing the false positives.

    @FlopTrain so when the dev stated in the previous page there is no correlation between oor and server performance you won't believe them cause it doesn't fit your agenda. Yet when he talked about fixing the code against high latency, you literally spammed every thread attempting to proove that the devs say oor is an advantage. You really can't just pick and choose when he says something that is not true just because you dont want to believe it.
  • denjoga
    607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    Since BF3, it has been abundantly clear that, in a head to head gunfight, with all else being equal, the player with the higher latency wins.
    You've seen all the stuff Mischkag wrote in this thread about making things more difficult for "high pingers", yeah?

    How do you interpret that?

    I'm not claiming low ping is the end-all be-all of connection quality, I know there are other factors.
    I am also not claiming that people playing out of region are the only ones who could possibly be bogging down server performance.

    I am claiming that players with horrible quality connections (however you want to define that) ruin the server performance for all the players with better quality connections.
    Mischkag seems to agree and I'll take his word over yours without question.

    I'm also not claiming that variations in latency and/or other connection quality issues is the only problem and the only cause of poor server performance, but from what I have witnessed and experienced personally (and read in this thread), I believe it is the biggest problem.

    Where are you?
    Are you in the UK?
    If so, lets meet up in a UK server and go head to head and see who fares better.
    I'd be willing to bet money (dollars, euros, pounds, reals, rupees - your choice) that the wider the gap in our ping values, the better I'll perform against you (assuming you=lower & me=higher ping).

    edit: You know what - this is a stupid argument that I've been having for years now, and one I thought that this thread had finally settled.
    I'm not going to argue with you about it - I've had enough of banging my head against a wall (and being shot through one).
    I have clearly demonstrated for myself, time and again that, all else being equal, the player with the higher latency wins.
    Didn't even need a dev's confirmation that what I have seen with my own eyes is true, but now I have it, so no more arguing.
  • Mosvalve
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    FlopTrain wrote: »

    I know my connection is good,..why am I being punished for that!? And not offered any alternative options to play, with out poor connections ruining my experience?

    Exactly, I knew my connection was good even without running UOTrace. But there are people on here who still want to insist that it is "our" networks that are the problem, not "theirs".

    Like you mentioned, why do we not have the option to play with people who only have good connections, low ping and play in-region? I understand making the game as playable as possible for ALL players. But their is zero reason not to have dedicated servers that are ping/region locked, even if they are just the rented servers. I would gladly fork over more money to rent a server with this option even though I shouldn't have to, just to have the kind of experience I expect when I pay for a game.

    The people that insist is ours are the ones that lag the game out.
  • Mosvalve
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    denjoga wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Ok, so explain to me why someone 1000 miles away can't have a good quality connection.
    Um - the laws of physics maybe? Distance = latency.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Define what you think is good.
    Well, from this thread, I'd say less than 150ms ping.
    I know when I've played on EU servers, my ping is around 100ms and my k/d improves markedly (in-region my ping is ~10-30ms w/ 0 packet loss).
    Necessarily, someone else's k/d and general performance had to suffer for mine to improve and I'm sure there were players in the UK cursing me every time we met head to head and I won.
    I've only done this a few times in BF1, because it's a **** move.
    In BF3 I did it regularly because it was the only way I could get acceptable performance.


    So, what you're saying about South Americans is that they immigrate to the US and bring crappy internet with them???
    You're saying that all those players in US East servers in BF3 w/ BR in their names, who were clearly the cause of poor server performance, were all living in the east US and just happened to have far, far worse internet service than 99% of players who also lived in the east US and identified as American?

    lol Ok.
    Hey, our new president has a beautiful wall he'd like to sell you. The best wall. If you buy now, maybe he'll throw in a bridge or two.

    Latency is not the only consideration of good internet. Based on your definition there a person can have 125ms latency and 20% packetloss and be considered good. I get under 150ms latency to EU servers so in that definition again I have good internet, which will disprove Americans are ruining EU servers wouldn't it.

    Problem here is latency is not the issue, it's stable internet that matters. Having minimum packet loss, as little jitter as possible, and going through stable hops.

    UOTrace is a very good start to test your connection to EA servers but it doesn't test all situations and issues. Like in the situation if your testing from your wired PC and your PS4 is on the extreme edge of its signal strength, I believe its not gonna be able to see that.

    Just to be clear, not saying there are not issues, but fix the coding problems first because that is causing the false positives.

    @FlopTrain so when the dev stated in the previous page there is no correlation between oor and server performance you won't believe them cause it doesn't fit your agenda. Yet when he talked about fixing the code against high latency, you literally spammed every thread attempting to proove that the devs say oor is an advantage. You really can't just pick and choose when he says something that is not true just because you dont want to believe it.

    What you are saying doesn't even make sense. If you can't see someone that is lagging you can't hit them. If the server is bogged down by having to interpolate a significant amount of data i.e. A sh-t ton of laggers...guess what, it's affecting the server. It happens in every multi player game. Do you mean to tell me that all games have bad netcode? That's foolish! Is that why playing on a wifi connection makes it worse and not better? The common denominator is latency, period.

    You know why Battlefield has had issues since BF 3? Because it was the first time you could play on a wifi connection on console. Before that you need an Ethernet cable. Thus opening the door for every lagging scrub that can't afford a cat 5e cable. That includes poor Brazilians and Mexicans and whoever else that has immigrated to the USA.

    When are you people going to understand that Sony, DICE, EA, etc. don't care if the games lag. Sony sold the most PlayStations at one time this past Black Friday. eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-28-black-friday-week-is-biggest-for-ps4-hardware-sales-since-console-launch All they care about is sales. What do you think they care about, Selling games and consoles. Or making sure you have a lag free experience? The lag free experience is on the lower end of their priority list I can assure of that.
    Post edited by Mosvalve on
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    denjoga wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Ok, so explain to me why someone 1000 miles away can't have a good quality connection.
    Um - the laws of physics maybe? Distance = latency.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Define what you think is good.
    Well, from this thread, I'd say less than 150ms ping.
    I know when I've played on EU servers, my ping is around 100ms and my k/d improves markedly (in-region my ping is ~10-30ms w/ 0 packet loss).
    Necessarily, someone else's k/d and general performance had to suffer for mine to improve and I'm sure there were players in the UK cursing me every time we met head to head and I won.
    I've only done this a few times in BF1, because it's a **** move.
    In BF3 I did it regularly because it was the only way I could get acceptable performance.


    So, what you're saying about South Americans is that they immigrate to the US and bring crappy internet with them???
    You're saying that all those players in US East servers in BF3 w/ BR in their names, who were clearly the cause of poor server performance, were all living in the east US and just happened to have far, far worse internet service than 99% of players who also lived in the east US and identified as American?

    lol Ok.
    Hey, our new president has a beautiful wall he'd like to sell you. The best wall. If you buy now, maybe he'll throw in a bridge or two.

    Latency is not the only consideration of good internet. Based on your definition there a person can have 125ms latency and 20% packetloss and be considered good. I get under 150ms latency to EU servers so in that definition again I have good internet, which will disprove Americans are ruining EU servers wouldn't it.

    Problem here is latency is not the issue, it's stable internet that matters. Having minimum packet loss, as little jitter as possible, and going through stable hops.

    UOTrace is a very good start to test your connection to EA servers but it doesn't test all situations and issues. Like in the situation if your testing from your wired PC and your PS4 is on the extreme edge of its signal strength, I believe its not gonna be able to see that.

    Just to be clear, not saying there are not issues, but fix the coding problems first because that is causing the false positives.

    @FlopTrain so when the dev stated in the previous page there is no correlation between oor and server performance you won't believe them cause it doesn't fit your agenda. Yet when he talked about fixing the code against high latency, you literally spammed every thread attempting to proove that the devs say oor is an advantage. You really can't just pick and choose when he says something that is not true just because you dont want to believe it.

    First of all.

    Several years ago. Criss and some guys found out that packet loss degrade a server. (this is what you have been pushing as an argument for a long time)
    Nothing wrong with that.

    I have been wondering and thinking about how a server handles varying /fluctuating ping values. For quite some time.

    Example. Player A have 50ms. Server places him in time and location. Player A spikes to 1000ms. Server have to recalculate everything to place player A correct in time and location.

    How does this affect the servers memory and CPU. If it's many players on the server that constantly pendling up and down in ping walues?

    What hapens when a player are localized in time and place in the game world for a ping value of 1000ms. Then suddenly have a ping of 50ms? Does this create a bad experience for that player? Yes Ofcorse! Does it create a bad experience for the guys trying to kill that player? Probably!

    Those are the questions I brought up.

    And @mischkag gave some info on twitter to me and criss, and some other guys. that fluctuating ping was not good for the server.


    If I remember right. You stated that server tick value above 15-20 makes the performance go bad. (this was a while back)
    I questioned that since it is 33ms by default. And 20ms would be well within the limits.

    But after looking at the netgraph and the SrvTick. When ever a server feels bad/inconsistent. I have come to the conclusion that you stated.
    Ower 16ms, and the strange stuff starts to occur more and more often.

    Now the question is.
    Why does that happen?
    On console 20ms is inside the limits!
    So why does it start to feel so off?


    Why is it that en entire party of players.
    Suddenly turn in to Mc Donalds soldier's. When players with KSA etc, in there names are joining the server?

    Good players that always are in the top of the scoreboard, with a kd of 40/10 as infantry.. Suddenly turn in to **** with a kd of 10/40!?

    Every one starts to rage and curse.. Looking at the netgraph. And checking there connections..
    Then starts to question why the SrvTick value have risen!?

    When changing to a east US server, and there the SrvTick is much lower.
    And the game runs much better.
    What conclusion should we draw from that?

  • Mosvalve
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    denjoga wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Ok, so explain to me why someone 1000 miles away can't have a good quality connection.
    Um - the laws of physics maybe? Distance = latency.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Define what you think is good.
    Well, from this thread, I'd say less than 150ms ping.
    I know when I've played on EU servers, my ping is around 100ms and my k/d improves markedly (in-region my ping is ~10-30ms w/ 0 packet loss).
    Necessarily, someone else's k/d and general performance had to suffer for mine to improve and I'm sure there were players in the UK cursing me every time we met head to head and I won.
    I've only done this a few times in BF1, because it's a **** move.
    In BF3 I did it regularly because it was the only way I could get acceptable performance.


    So, what you're saying about South Americans is that they immigrate to the US and bring crappy internet with them???
    You're saying that all those players in US East servers in BF3 w/ BR in their names, who were clearly the cause of poor server performance, were all living in the east US and just happened to have far, far worse internet service than 99% of players who also lived in the east US and identified as American?

    lol Ok.
    Hey, our new president has a beautiful wall he'd like to sell you. The best wall. If you buy now, maybe he'll throw in a bridge or two.

    Latency is not the only consideration of good internet. Based on your definition there a person can have 125ms latency and 20% packetloss and be considered good. I get under 150ms latency to EU servers so in that definition again I have good internet, which will disprove Americans are ruining EU servers wouldn't it.

    Problem here is latency is not the issue, it's stable internet that matters. Having minimum packet loss, as little jitter as possible, and going through stable hops.

    UOTrace is a very good start to test your connection to EA servers but it doesn't test all situations and issues. Like in the situation if your testing from your wired PC and your PS4 is on the extreme edge of its signal strength, I believe its not gonna be able to see that.

    Just to be clear, not saying there are not issues, but fix the coding problems first because that is causing the false positives.

    @FlopTrain so when the dev stated in the previous page there is no correlation between oor and server performance you won't believe them cause it doesn't fit your agenda. Yet when he talked about fixing the code against high latency, you literally spammed every thread attempting to proove that the devs say oor is an advantage. You really can't just pick and choose when he says something that is not true just because you dont want to believe it.

    First of all.

    Several years ago. Criss and some guys found out that packet loss degrade a server. (this is what you have been pushing as an argument for a long time)
    Nothing wrong with that.

    I have been wondering and thinking about how a server handles varying /fluctuating ping values. For quite some time.

    Example. Player A have 50ms. Server places him in time and location. Player A spikes to 1000ms. Server have to recalculate everything to place player A correct in time and location.

    How does this affect the servers memory and CPU. If it's many players on the server that constantly pendling up and down in ping walues?

    What hapens when a player are localized in time and place in the game world for a ping value of 1000ms. Then suddenly have a ping of 50ms? Does this create a bad experience for that player? Yes Ofcorse! Does it create a bad experience for the guys trying to kill that player? Probably!

    Those are the questions I brought up.

    And @mischkag gave some info on twitter to me and criss, and some other guys. that fluctuating ping was not good for the server.


    If I remember right. You stated that server tick value above 15-20 makes the performance go bad. (this was a while back)
    I questioned that since it is 33ms by default. And 20ms would be well within the limits.

    But after looking at the netgraph and the SrvTick. When ever a server feels bad/inconsistent. I have come to the conclusion that you stated.
    Ower 16ms, and the strange stuff starts to occur more and more often.

    Now the question is.
    Why does that happen?
    On console 20ms is inside the limits!
    So why does it start to feel so off?


    Why is it that en entire party of players.
    Suddenly turn in to Mc Donalds soldier's. When players with KSA etc, in there names are joining the server?

    Good players that always are in the top of the scoreboard, with a kd of 40/10 as infantry.. Suddenly turn in to **** with a kd of 10/40!?

    Every one starts to rage and curse.. Looking at the netgraph. And checking there connections..
    Then starts to question why the SrvTick value have risen!?

    When changing to a east US server, and there the SrvTick is much lower.
    And the game runs much better.
    What conclusion should we draw from that?

    Thank you, if the server has more work to do, then it adds some serious problems to the mix. Why don't high ping players notice it? Because they are used to playing on rubber banding McDonald's wifi. Anyone that has a good connection sees this.

    tumblr_ogedzeZtEa1vooxiio1_400.gif


  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2017
    denjoga wrote: »
    Since BF3, it has been abundantly clear that, in a head to head gunfight, with all else being equal, the player with the higher latency wins.
    You've seen all the stuff Mischkag wrote in this thread about making things more difficult for "high pingers", yeah?

    How do you interpret that?

    I'm not claiming low ping is the end-all be-all of connection quality, I know there are other factors.
    I am also not claiming that people playing out of region are the only ones who could possibly be bogging down server performance.

    I am claiming that players with horrible quality connections (however you want to define that) ruin the server performance for all the players with better quality connections.
    Mischkag seems to agree and I'll take his word over yours without question.

    I'm also not claiming that variations in latency and/or other connection quality issues is the only problem and the only cause of poor server performance, but from what I have witnessed and experienced personally (and read in this thread), I believe it is the biggest problem.

    Where are you?
    Are you in the UK?
    If so, lets meet up in a UK server and go head to head and see who fares better.
    I'd be willing to bet money (dollars, euros, pounds, reals, rupees - your choice) that the wider the gap in our ping values, the better I'll perform against you (assuming you=lower & me=higher ping).

    edit: You know what - this is a stupid argument that I've been having for years now, and one I thought that this thread had finally settled.
    I'm not going to argue with you about it - I've had enough of banging my head against a wall (and being shot through one).
    I have clearly demonstrated for myself, time and again that, all else being equal, the player with the higher latency wins.
    Didn't even need a dev's confirmation that what I have seen with my own eyes is true, but now I have it, so no more arguing.

    Many huge fallacies here. The dev also stated that low pingers have advatages over high pingers as well. In engagements where you come around the corner first for example or wen strafing, the high latency player has to lead their targets more. I'm actually in the US but will play in the FF servers when they have events. I don't have the advantage, in fact I have posted vids in the past showing me getting hit around corners and behind cover when playing oor. Also shown playing in region with a server loaded with Brazilians, playing dom, and them not having a single issue.

    When there have been actual competitive matches with people from different regions, why would they insist on playing in their own region if the lag advatage was real?

    Again I never said bad connections were not an issues, time and time again I have stated packet loss causes server degradation, and people with crappy internet or wifi is an issue. But bad internet =/= OOR, you either dint understand networks or have a very narrow definition of crappy internet.

    @lizzard again people constantly say east coast servers are bogged with oor, your allies here constantly say that. So if that is true SrvTick should be always through the roof on them, not just your EU servers. So that theory is false, not to mention that the dev said that as well. The server won't work harder if there are oor or high latency players, it waits for input from them like all the other connections. No SrvTick will raise as more people join because he has more people to send data to. Or with packet loss since it has to either get it retransmitted or use error correction (using cpu power). Or if it recieves packets put of order and has to reassemble them (high jitter or what you call fluctuating ping). In fact you can easily see the SrvTick be low in a dom match cause there are less people on. This is why people with high latency get damage around a corner, because the server applies damage from their last confirmed location, it's not holding the data and waiting for another request.
  • FlopTrain
    506 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    I don't have an agenda. I just know that Battlefield is a game that plays better without greatly varying pings/latencies. Anyone with common sense wouldn't argue against this fact.

    If anyone has an agenda it is those that continue to try and convince others this isn't a serious issue. Or that the problems aren't exacerbated by players from across the globe, playing where they shouldn't be.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    FlopTrain wrote: »
    I don't have an agenda. I just know that Battlefield is a game that plays better without greatly varying pings/latencies. Anyone with common sense wouldn't argue against this fact.

    If anyone has an agenda it is those that continue to try and convince others this isn't a serious issue. Or that the problems aren't exacerbated by players from across the globe, playing where they shouldn't be.

    And yet thendev, who has more test data than any of us, and Chris who has actually tested this are both wrong because you don't agree with it.

    That's the funny thing about facts, they don't change just because you dont believe them.
  • Mosvalve
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    If the servers tick rate is 16 it is essentially half of what it should be. Hence lag. That's why when you play in a us west server with Chinese and Japanese players with a server tick of nine it acts like garbage.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2017
    Mosvalve wrote: »
    If the servers tick rate is 16 it is essentially half of what it should be. Hence lag.
    Mosvalve wrote: »
    If the servers tick rate is 16 it is essentially half of what it should be. Hence lag.

    Wut? Half of what it should be?

    What should it be then?
Sign In or Register to comment.