Weekly BF

Hit Detection

Comments

  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote:
    After reading up on Rev0verDrive's info in the beginning of this thread. And some really good info he linked to.

    The hopes of good online FPS games on console is crushed..
    I see a clear correlation within the friends on PlayStation. The one's that have been playing fps games online for +10 years. Are the one's that notice wtf moments first.
    Its also those guys and girls that stops to enjoy the game, and quits playing when these things happen.

    The spring patch brought back half the friendslist to bf1. And almost everyone was amazed by how the gameplay experience had changed.
    One week after the hotfix was implemented, everyone had left the game.

    And now there's no one that will even test the game.. Most seems to have traded it in for cod. I never thought the battlefield fans would go to cod, but they seem happy and say "atleast it's working!"

    As a sid note.
    Ubisoft did a overhaul of rainbow six siege, to make it more fair for lowpingers.
    Guess what? You can still join with +300ms and wreck havoc on the lowpingers..
    It feels like those issues will never ever be Okey on console!

    R6S Devs also posted a blog article highlighting high ping advantages, the introduction of "the icons" and general netcode information.
    https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en-us/news/152-303559-16/dev-blog-ping-abuse-peekers-advantage-and-next-steps

    Looks quite a bit like what's been posted in here. Another studio confirming what's been said.

    icons_303573.png

    vs BF1's

    syvzV.png

    Yes and it sounds like you should not be able to play r6s with a high ping or a bad connection..
    Still the game is massively out of sync when having a low ping!
    Changing datacenter to a center with +200-300ms makes you almost unstoppable!

    Enemies don't hear your footsteps.
    Dont hear you breaking a window behind them.
    When rushing in around a corner, they fire 2 meters behind you.

    Game turns from a choppy lagy fps dropping wtf fest. In to a smoth godmode experience.

    Makes no sense.. But that is how it works!

    Well technically it does make sense as to why it happens. The reasons studios don't "fix" the issue is because there isn't a fix all silver bullet.

    If you limit latency, latency variation and packet loss you in reality have severely limited your market. For those within the limits gameplay would be pristine, but those outside those limits wouldn't have access to multiplayer. You couldn't play with friends around the world. And for a large majority of people you couldn't play outside your very local region. For example US east couldn't play US west.

    You can provide ping limits, but you also have to provide alternatives. BF has a RSP. You can rent a server and enforce a 100ms ping limit. CoD, Siege, Destiny 2, Overwatch, TF2, SWBF2 do not have RSP options. So they really can't restrict access to a server.

    BF's rsp should also provide a packet loss and variance limiter alongside the ping limiter.
  • CurvedTax769796
    146 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I don't but all this information is still very fascinating to me and I tip my hat to those of you who understand it all. I guess being 64 and working outdoors all my life not needing a computer to do what I did I'm not supposed to understand and just be glad that there are those who do
  • HillbillyJohn
    493 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dice could implement a matchmaking system with region and ping limitation for players that want it in addition to quick match and the server browser.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote:
    After reading up on Rev0verDrive's info in the beginning of this thread. And some really good info he linked to.

    The hopes of good online FPS games on console is crushed..
    I see a clear correlation within the friends on PlayStation. The one's that have been playing fps games online for +10 years. Are the one's that notice wtf moments first.
    Its also those guys and girls that stops to enjoy the game, and quits playing when these things happen.

    The spring patch brought back half the friendslist to bf1. And almost everyone was amazed by how the gameplay experience had changed.
    One week after the hotfix was implemented, everyone had left the game.

    And now there's no one that will even test the game.. Most seems to have traded it in for cod. I never thought the battlefield fans would go to cod, but they seem happy and say "atleast it's working!"

    As a sid note.
    Ubisoft did a overhaul of rainbow six siege, to make it more fair for lowpingers.
    Guess what? You can still join with +300ms and wreck havoc on the lowpingers..
    It feels like those issues will never ever be Okey on console!

    R6S Devs also posted a blog article highlighting high ping advantages, the introduction of "the icons" and general netcode information.
    https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en-us/news/152-303559-16/dev-blog-ping-abuse-peekers-advantage-and-next-steps

    Looks quite a bit like what's been posted in here. Another studio confirming what's been said.

    icons_303573.png

    vs BF1's

    syvzV.png

    Yes and it sounds like you should not be able to play r6s with a high ping or a bad connection..
    Still the game is massively out of sync when having a low ping!
    Changing datacenter to a center with +200-300ms makes you almost unstoppable!

    Enemies don't hear your footsteps.
    Dont hear you breaking a window behind them.
    When rushing in around a corner, they fire 2 meters behind you.

    Game turns from a choppy lagy fps dropping wtf fest. In to a smoth godmode experience.

    Makes no sense.. But that is how it works!

    Well technically it does make sense as to why it happens. The reasons studios don't "fix" the issue is because there isn't a fix all silver bullet.

    If you limit latency, latency variation and packet loss you in reality have severely limited your market. For those within the limits gameplay would be pristine, but those outside those limits wouldn't have access to multiplayer. You couldn't play with friends around the world. And for a large majority of people you couldn't play outside your very local region. For example US east couldn't play US west.

    You can provide ping limits, but you also have to provide alternatives. BF has a RSP. You can rent a server and enforce a 100ms ping limit. CoD, Siege, Destiny 2, Overwatch, TF2, SWBF2 do not have RSP options. So they really can't restrict access to a server.

    BF's rsp should also provide a packet loss and variance limiter alongside the ping limiter.

    I guess the only way is to give everyone a ping of +150ms. Since that is the only way the online games play somewhat smooth on console.

    Connecting through Australian servercenters for us Europeans seems to work like a charm in r6s. Aim. Mowement. Hitreg etc. Is buttery smooth.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Dice could implement a matchmaking system with region and ping limitation for players that want it in addition to quick match and the server browser.

    Ping limitation isn't a guarantee. You can have high packet loss and variance with a 7ms ping (1GB fiber connection). Albeit is better than nothing.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote:
    After reading up on Rev0verDrive's info in the beginning of this thread. And some really good info he linked to.

    The hopes of good online FPS games on console is crushed..
    I see a clear correlation within the friends on PlayStation. The one's that have been playing fps games online for +10 years. Are the one's that notice wtf moments first.
    Its also those guys and girls that stops to enjoy the game, and quits playing when these things happen.

    The spring patch brought back half the friendslist to bf1. And almost everyone was amazed by how the gameplay experience had changed.
    One week after the hotfix was implemented, everyone had left the game.

    And now there's no one that will even test the game.. Most seems to have traded it in for cod. I never thought the battlefield fans would go to cod, but they seem happy and say "atleast it's working!"

    As a sid note.
    Ubisoft did a overhaul of rainbow six siege, to make it more fair for lowpingers.
    Guess what? You can still join with +300ms and wreck havoc on the lowpingers..
    It feels like those issues will never ever be Okey on console!

    R6S Devs also posted a blog article highlighting high ping advantages, the introduction of "the icons" and general netcode information.
    https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en-us/news/152-303559-16/dev-blog-ping-abuse-peekers-advantage-and-next-steps

    Looks quite a bit like what's been posted in here. Another studio confirming what's been said.

    icons_303573.png

    vs BF1's

    syvzV.png

    Yes and it sounds like you should not be able to play r6s with a high ping or a bad connection..
    Still the game is massively out of sync when having a low ping!
    Changing datacenter to a center with +200-300ms makes you almost unstoppable!

    Enemies don't hear your footsteps.
    Dont hear you breaking a window behind them.
    When rushing in around a corner, they fire 2 meters behind you.

    Game turns from a choppy lagy fps dropping wtf fest. In to a smoth godmode experience.

    Makes no sense.. But that is how it works!

    Well technically it does make sense as to why it happens. The reasons studios don't "fix" the issue is because there isn't a fix all silver bullet.

    If you limit latency, latency variation and packet loss you in reality have severely limited your market. For those within the limits gameplay would be pristine, but those outside those limits wouldn't have access to multiplayer. You couldn't play with friends around the world. And for a large majority of people you couldn't play outside your very local region. For example US east couldn't play US west.

    You can provide ping limits, but you also have to provide alternatives. BF has a RSP. You can rent a server and enforce a 100ms ping limit. CoD, Siege, Destiny 2, Overwatch, TF2, SWBF2 do not have RSP options. So they really can't restrict access to a server.

    BF's rsp should also provide a packet loss and variance limiter alongside the ping limiter.

    I guess the only way is to give everyone a ping of +150ms. Since that is the only way the online games play somewhat smooth on console.

    Connecting through Australian servercenters for us Europeans seems to work like a charm in r6s. Aim. Mowement. Hitreg etc. Is buttery smooth.

    That's the high ping advantage. The downside is the advantage only works well with a specific play style.
  • HillbillyJohn
    493 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dice could implement a matchmaking system with region and ping limitation for players that want it in addition to quick match and the server browser.

    Ping limitation isn't a guarantee. You can have high packet loss and variance with a 7ms ping (1GB fiber connection). Albeit is better than nothing.

    I know it's not a perfect solution but it wouldn't limit anyone as they have other options and I believe it would be a step in the right direction.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Dice could implement a matchmaking system with region and ping limitation for players that want it in addition to quick match and the server browser.

    Ping limitation isn't a guarantee. You can have high packet loss and variance with a 7ms ping (1GB fiber connection). Albeit is better than nothing.

    I know it's not a perfect solution but it wouldn't limit anyone as they have other options and I believe it would be a step in the right direction.

    Depends on the players involved whether it's a limitation or not.

    Four friends (1 US East, 2 US West, 1 Eastern EU), at a minimum 2 aren't going to be able to play on whichever server is chosen... if one is actually chosen.

    US West couldn't play EU, The EU and potentially US East couldn't play US West.

    Matchmaking without friends involved would work to a degree. Long term it would drastically reduce the player pools for given regions.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dice could implement a matchmaking system with region and ping limitation for players that want it in addition to quick match and the server browser.

    Ping limitation isn't a guarantee. You can have high packet loss and variance with a 7ms ping (1GB fiber connection). Albeit is better than nothing.

    Not to mention as you said east coast and west coast players. What about the people in the central, or Canada and mexico? Or Russia and Italy?


    Dice might want to concentrate on making the game run and play properly before sticking in all those fancy bullet physics that aren't really credible to begin with. As an example a pistol is a last ditch effort at survival not a primary weapon that takes out players at long range. Same with auto rifles that fire pistol rounds, they are not even in the same league as bolt action rifles. Let's get real.

    They are only questionable when someone doesn't understand the mechanics.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    Not to mention as you said east coast and west coast players. What about the people in the central, or Canada and mexico? Or Russia and Italy?

    Hitting home with the larger base has a better chance of making a splat.
  • LeonReed123
    82 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member

    There are a few things that could be done in order to offer those "close to perfect" game settings, but they would restrict a large portion of the playerbase.

    Having both options available would also supply the players with the setups capable of " close to perfect " the option, and after all thats what they paid for surely.

    Not having the option is basically deteriorating the quality of a product sold by the manufacturer themselves...who on Earth does that?

    Having both the large portion of the player base wouldnt even be aware they would just be restricted from certain servers. And from my experience the amount of people who play OOR for what is anyones guess amazes me. Really should people in Europe with a latency under a 100 even be given the option of US servers and hitting a latency well above their own region.

  • CurvedTax769796
    146 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Is there a way of determining which servers are closest to me. When browsing all I've noticed is "US" and the number and color of the bars
  • LeonReed123
    82 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Your looking for all the bars to be green and you can switch regions to look for servers to see which region offers the most green bars, I think theres 5 so getting 4 or 5 green should be your closest if I am not mistaken.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote:
    After reading up on Rev0verDrive's info in the beginning of this thread. And some really good info he linked to.

    The hopes of good online FPS games on console is crushed..
    I see a clear correlation within the friends on PlayStation. The one's that have been playing fps games online for +10 years. Are the one's that notice wtf moments first.
    Its also those guys and girls that stops to enjoy the game, and quits playing when these things happen.

    The spring patch brought back half the friendslist to bf1. And almost everyone was amazed by how the gameplay experience had changed.
    One week after the hotfix was implemented, everyone had left the game.

    And now there's no one that will even test the game.. Most seems to have traded it in for cod. I never thought the battlefield fans would go to cod, but they seem happy and say "atleast it's working!"

    As a sid note.
    Ubisoft did a overhaul of rainbow six siege, to make it more fair for lowpingers.
    Guess what? You can still join with +300ms and wreck havoc on the lowpingers..
    It feels like those issues will never ever be Okey on console!

    R6S Devs also posted a blog article highlighting high ping advantages, the introduction of "the icons" and general netcode information.
    https://rainbow6.ubisoft.com/siege/en-us/news/152-303559-16/dev-blog-ping-abuse-peekers-advantage-and-next-steps

    Looks quite a bit like what's been posted in here. Another studio confirming what's been said.

    icons_303573.png

    vs BF1's

    syvzV.png

    Yes and it sounds like you should not be able to play r6s with a high ping or a bad connection..
    Still the game is massively out of sync when having a low ping!
    Changing datacenter to a center with +200-300ms makes you almost unstoppable!

    Enemies don't hear your footsteps.
    Dont hear you breaking a window behind them.
    When rushing in around a corner, they fire 2 meters behind you.

    Game turns from a choppy lagy fps dropping wtf fest. In to a smoth godmode experience.

    Makes no sense.. But that is how it works!

    Well technically it does make sense as to why it happens. The reasons studios don't "fix" the issue is because there isn't a fix all silver bullet.

    If you limit latency, latency variation and packet loss you in reality have severely limited your market. For those within the limits gameplay would be pristine, but those outside those limits wouldn't have access to multiplayer. You couldn't play with friends around the world. And for a large majority of people you couldn't play outside your very local region. For example US east couldn't play US west.

    You can provide ping limits, but you also have to provide alternatives. BF has a RSP. You can rent a server and enforce a 100ms ping limit. CoD, Siege, Destiny 2, Overwatch, TF2, SWBF2 do not have RSP options. So they really can't restrict access to a server.

    BF's rsp should also provide a packet loss and variance limiter alongside the ping limiter.

    I guess the only way is to give everyone a ping of +150ms. Since that is the only way the online games play somewhat smooth on console.

    Connecting through Australian servercenters for us Europeans seems to work like a charm in r6s. Aim. Mowement. Hitreg etc. Is buttery smooth.

    That's the high ping advantage. The downside is the advantage only works well with a specific play style.

    But both @mmarkweII and @VBALL_MVP
    Have made it clear that there is no high ping advantage.

    And they say knowledge is power.. Im confused :neutral:
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    There are a few things that could be done in order to offer those "close to perfect" game settings, but they would restrict a large portion of the playerbase.

    Having both options available would also supply the players with the setups capable of " close to perfect " the option, and after all thats what they paid for surely.

    Not having the option is basically deteriorating the quality of a product sold by the manufacturer themselves...who on Earth does that?

    Having both the large portion of the player base wouldnt even be aware they would just be restricted from certain servers. And from my experience the amount of people who play OOR for what is anyones guess amazes me. Really should people in Europe with a latency under a 100 even be given the option of US servers and hitting a latency well above their own region.

    Yes they should.
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    Not to mention as you said east coast and west coast players. What about the people in the central, or Canada and mexico? Or Russia and Italy?

    Hitting home with the larger base has a better chance of making a splat.

    I don't think the Neatherlands or Ireland is the larger base. We will never know since we don't know which countries sold the most copies
  • CurvedTax769796
    146 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Thanks
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Having both options available would also supply the players with the setups capable of " close to perfect " the option, and after all thats what they paid for surely.

    Not having the option is basically deteriorating the quality of a product sold by the manufacturer themselves...who on Earth does that?

    Having both the large portion of the player base wouldnt even be aware they would just be restricted from certain servers. And from my experience the amount of people who play OOR for what is anyones guess amazes me. Really should people in Europe with a latency under a 100 even be given the option of US servers and hitting a latency well above their own region.

    Asia, Africa, Middle Eastern servers apparently suck. There's claims from all of those regions (some actual proof) that they get better connectivity in EU servers then in their own region. Then there's Oceana/South Africa being isolated from the general playerbase.

    I simply see connection limitations on a public server ultimately limiting its player pool. For example if EA pushed limitations on all servers you'd end up with probably only 20% of each region (or less) being able to play. Providing a few limited in each region you'd find them full constantly and very hard to join.

    Most of the US East servers are located in DC and NY. Outside of a 800 mile radius you need to have above base package internet and to be hardwired. I have 1Gbps Fiber Verizon (direct to router, Tiered priority traffic). That's pretty much the best you can get in the US.

    For US West servers I get 60-90ms pings, 3-5% packet loss, 3+% variance.
    US East is 7-15ms (I live an hour away from DC). EU 80-120ms.

    25718721.png

    Now just imagine for a second what the average US household connection is like. Barebones internet package on a 3rd gen router.... 25Mbps ... 50Mbps ... cable. As is very large sectors of central US pull over 100ms easy on both East and West.

    I'd love to see more options, but only for RSP. They wouldn't work in my opinion if pushed on all servers.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6757 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    I don't think the Neatherlands or Ireland is the larger base. We will never know since we don't know which countries sold the most copies

    Those are server locations that support the EU Region. Europe isn't just Netherlands and Ireland.

    Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom (UK), Vatican City

    ^^^ That's the EU region ^^^ ... as in All of Europe.

    The US and EU drive and have driven the MP FPS market for the past 2 decades. Hence the high ping threshold differences. US/EU 160, everywhere else 200. If EA had central US servers and EU had London and Germany, then the US and EU regions probably would've stayed at 100ms.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2017
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    I don't think the Neatherlands or Ireland is the larger base. We will never know since we don't know which countries sold the most copies

    Those are server locations that support the EU Region. Europe isn't just Netherlands and Ireland.

    Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom (UK), Vatican City

    ^^^ That's the EU region ^^^ ... as in All of Europe.

    The US and EU drive and have driven the MP FPS market for the past 2 decades. Hence the high ping threshold differences. US/EU 160, everywhere else 200. If EA had central US servers and EU had London and Germany, then the US and EU regions probably would've stayed at 100ms.

    You are prooving my point though. Having ping locks don't make sense just because of the demographics you speak. You just can't do that fairly without changing or adding locations.

    Also the reason why Asia and Middle East have issues is not because of their servers its because they both suffered major fiber line cuts. While the SEA-ME-WE3 line has been repaired they have had stability issues and that is why many ISPs have not updated their routes. NTT.net is causing issues accessing Dutch servers..id3 supposedly also have commented on that specific issue. Few weeks back Level3 had issues which affected Comcast customers.

    What also some people forget is that one may have fiber but that doesn't guarentee you will have 1Gbps or even 700Mbps connection all the way through. Not every area in the US can handle fiber bandwidth and depending on the route you take you may have performance and stability drops. This will get worse if net neutrality changes under Trump. As long as you stay on AT&Ts or Verizon's network you can have top speeds, reality is that is not always what will happen .

    TL;DR - You can buy the best service...doesnt mean you will have a fast stable connection.

    @lizzard as stated before the amount of advantages for low ping players out weight the one peekers advantage (which by the way low pingers have a peekers advantage as well). Espically now with server side detection. Again if there is this great advantage why are many complaining about their gameplay at high ping?
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So many lies here :p
Sign In or Register to comment.