Hit Detection

Comments

  • UrinDenialP
    143 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The packet that is lost is resent by the client, that information when it eventually is received by the server is then applied late to the player who the player with packet loss is interacting with, being held by damage , late and stacked damage are the effects of this, it causes large amounts of de-sync in game and is basically what we have been mostly complaining about for 257 pages.

    udp doesnt resend.
  • UrinDenialP
    143 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    HP Shots that arrive late or are lost are outright discarded and not resent (aka automatic MISS). Also the FHT is clamped, meaning it will only rewind history to a set ms. This time frame does not take into consideration your latency.
    thanks
    this is what i was hoping to read.


    this is why ea need to be more transparent on their netgraph.

    lets say out o 100 packets yu lose 1 and i lose 5.
    there is an advantage to you.

    now ignoring that.
    im concentrating on what can i do about my 5% loss.

    its not for ea to solve as they do not dictate the routes i use to get my packets to their server.

    but what they can do to help is the netgraph for packet loss.

    maybe add a far more detailed section so say after a match we can go in and have alook at a graph of data.
    compare whta we sent and how it was received.

    this info could be used as evidence when "consulting" our isps.

    from my testing ive seen some interesting things.
    i test when playing a lot so i can see things in real time in the game and on the pingplotter graphs.

    thanks again.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    udp doesnt resend.

    UDP does resend, yet it depends on the data, latency of the player and their connection stability. You need to re-read what I posted on the previous page.
    lets say out o 100 packets yu lose 1 and i lose 5.
    there is an advantage to you.

    Pre netcode updates the advantage was to the player dropping packets. But yes, now stabile connections have gained some advantage, like they should. But there's still a lot of work to be done. Sadly you'll never see fair play when dealing with large variances in latency. Literally "time" is the issue.
    im concentrating on what can i do about my 5% loss.

    its not for ea to solve as they do not dictate the routes i use to get my packets to their server.

    but what they can do to help is the netgraph for packet loss.

    maybe add a far more detailed section so say after a match we can go in and have alook at a graph of data.
    compare whta we sent and how it was received.

    this info could be used as evidence when "consulting" our isps.

    from my testing ive seen some interesting things.
    i test when playing a lot so i can see things in real time in the game and on the pingplotter graphs.

    thanks again.

    All you need is the ping plotter data and "UDP" traceroute dumps to the server (use pingplotter to get IP/ports). There are plenty of software options for running UDP traceroutes on windows.

    You can even go as far as scheduling a tech visit (massive packet loss, jitter). When they get there join a server and show them the issue.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    oJU5T1No wrote:
    Compensating for the lost packets purposefully ruining the game for everyone else.

    Explain what you think the compensation is and how it works. There maybe a misunderstanding.

    I don't know the really technical details but I know how it manifests in game, the player dropping packets will have non linear movement and when he engages me I will just get stuck to the spot , or die in 1 frame to bundled damage.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2017
    oJU5T1No wrote:
    oJU5T1No wrote:
    Compensating for the lost packets purposefully ruining the game for everyone else.

    Explain what you think the compensation is and how it works. There maybe a misunderstanding.

    I don't know the really technical details but I know how it manifests in game, the player dropping packets will have non linear movement and when he engages me I will just get stuck to the spot , or die in 1 frame to bundled damage.

    My explanation of what you're experiencing would be the player has a below threshold latency, but it's a very unstable connection with high loss spikes. You being "held" by an action of the other player (killing you). His data (shots) where resent because of prior loss. Ultimately you get all of his movement changes and the bundled damage kill in 1-3 updates....50ms.

    The "compensation" has nothing to do with your clients movement on screen. What the compensation does do is provide you with a "hittable" target vs the target warping at 2-3 meter bursts with zero animation.

    If the server doesn't get a packet from some laggy dude (packet loss or high latency) for a certain stretch of ticks it will take his last received data and extrapolate a position based on the direction, speed and movement of the player at that time. Then it will calculate the distance it needs to move the player based on the time elapsed. Using these new variables your client will now interpolate (animate) this position change over multiple frames in a smooth animation vs warping the player.

    e.g. the server hasn't received anything from J for N ms. Technically there's nothing to show you of that player other than J standing still, frozen in the game mid stride. So instead it chooses to predict movement ...continuing his sprint along the same heading and speed.

    The old alternative would maintain the current trajectory, but not record it to history. So inevitably the server would get a new update and the players history of movement would be written to the gamestate...and he'd be warped to the new position. The majority of the time it wasn't what was displayed on your screen. Therefore the shots you took and the client claimed a hit wouldn't count.

    There lies the inherent advantage that high pingers and unstable connections use to have.

    "What we saw and played against was not what was recorded in the game state nor arbitrated on in the hit reg."

    What we use to have was a players x frame old data displayed, we shoot at it, hit, then the server would deny it because the new data would reach the server before hit claims and alter the visual history....all because the extrapolated movement wasn't recorded as valid.

    All of this was caused by the latency of data. The server cannot show you the real time position of a player. It's impossible with the current data speeds. You'd need quantum internet which doesn't exist ... yet.

    So for a clear picture of what's really happening you have to understand thoroughly that what's displayed on screen of other players is in the past. As in already happened and they aren't currently there anymore. Your actions are real time only to you.

    How old the position is, is dependent on yours and their latency, tickrate interval, when their data reached the server (what segment of the tick interval), and rendering time.

    The absolute best way for me to illustrate this would be a race scenario.

    We all know of the pre-round start clock. When it hits 0 on your screen you can move. Well it hits 0 on everyone's screen at the exact same moment in time.

    Now imagine every player is lined up at a 100m track. Forward, full sprint and direction are hard locked. When the clock hits 0 every player on their screen jets forward at full sprint toward the finish line. Yet, in reality you do not move onscreen to other players until your packet reaches the server and then to them. So your actions, albeit instantaneous on your screen, are in fact delayed on the others screen.

    The absolute reality of this race outcome would be the lowest latent player would win. The highest latent player would be the last across the line. Regardless of what is shown on screen or where they see themselves in the pack. It all comes down to latency. The server doesn't know you've crossed the finish line until it receives the packet saying you have.

    My latency on average to East coast servers is right around 10ms. It only takes my data 5ms to reach the server. So within 5ms of the race starting the server knows I'm sprinting. For the 200ms player the server doesn't have him leaving the starting line until 100ms has elapsed. Visually to me at 7ms it would be about 6-8 frames.

    So taking that same 200ms player into consideration...what you see him do onscreen "PRE NETCODE" changes was 6-8 frames behind what he was actually doing. That literally could mean left side of screen vs right. Prone vs standing vs crouched, looking at you, firing and so forth.

    We've all ran across the "just started reloading" guy that you die to instantly. That was this latency delay being shown in true form.
  • DenNassi
    22 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.
  • DenNassi
    22 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.

    Do not think so.. I can see 100+ games and join them.
    In multiplayer -> custom games, there are only 3 options : rush,conquer and one other..but no hardcore team
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2017
    DenNassi wrote: »
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.

    Do not think so.. I can see 100+ games and join them.
    In multiplayer -> custom games, there are only 3 options : rush,conquer and one other..but no hardcore team

    Off topic .... This discussion is on Hit Detection.

    regardless .........

    If you go to Multiplayer -> Custom Games there's "Quick Match" options for several Hardcore game modes. What's listed is always changing and is more than likely based on availability. Currently there is Conquest, Tsar Conquest, Rush and Back to Basics Conquest.

    Best option is to create a filter for HC TDM.
    Multiplayer -> Server Browser -> Filter
    Set game mode to TDM
    Enter Hardcore in the "Name" field.

    P5yro4U.jpg


    If you don't get any results then their probably aren't any HC TDM servers up in your region.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I was more on about the way damage is dealt to other players from a player dropping packets.
    What you say about movement is correct I experience being killed by players who aren't even firing there guns or looking in my direction yet ,or players whos damage and bullets round the corner before there character model does, or trying to shoot at a playing is standing but my shots ghost though him because he is actually prone. It all still happens very frequently the only netcode changes ive noticed is if I can fight the aim desist and actually get my sight on the lagging player hit detection is better than before the netcode changes.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I was more on about the way damage is dealt to other players from a player dropping packets.
    What you say about movement is correct I experience being killed by players who aren't even firing there guns or looking in my direction yet ,or players whos damage and bullets round the corner before there character model does, or trying to shoot at a playing is standing but my shots ghost though him because he is actually prone. It all still happens very frequently the only netcode changes ive noticed is if I can fight the aim desist and actually get my sight on the lagging player hit detection is better than before the netcode changes.

    What you're experiencing seems to be heavily impacted by aim assist, as far as lining up the real position vs the ghost. The damage aspect you are sighting doesn't happen when facing "true" above threshold players. You'll get from those that have an unstable connection.

    say 140ms with spikes to 240ms that hang for a few seconds. Can even happen to players with 30ms avg spiking to 110ms. That large variance in latency screams packet loss.

    Nothing can really be done about those situation beyond outright denying their hits during those spikes. Ultimately IMO it would be best if players with high variance latency would be kicked from the server "Unstable Connection", regardless there underlying average. The same should apply to those with high packet loss or even routine excessive packet loss.
  • DenNassi
    22 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    DenNassi wrote: »
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.

    Do not think so.. I can see 100+ games and join them.
    In multiplayer -> custom games, there are only 3 options : rush,conquer and one other..but no hardcore team

    Off topic .... This discussion is on Hit Detection.

    regardless .........

    If you go to Multiplayer -> Custom Games there's "Quick Match" options for several Hardcore game modes. What's listed is always changing and is more than likely based on availability. Currently there is Conquest, Tsar Conquest, Rush and Back to Basics Conquest.

    Best option is to create a filter for HC TDM.
    Multiplayer -> Server Browser -> Filter
    Set game mode to TDM
    Enter Hardcore in the "Name" field.

    P5yro4U.jpg


    If you don't get any results then their probably aren't any HC TDM servers up in your region.
    DenNassi wrote: »
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.

    Do not think so.. I can see 100+ games and join them.
    In multiplayer -> custom games, there are only 3 options : rush,conquer and one other..but no hardcore team

    Off topic .... This discussion is on Hit Detection.

    regardless .........

    If you go to Multiplayer -> Custom Games there's "Quick Match" options for several Hardcore game modes. What's listed is always changing and is more than likely based on availability. Currently there is Conquest, Tsar Conquest, Rush and Back to Basics Conquest.

    Best option is to create a filter for HC TDM.
    Multiplayer -> Server Browser -> Filter
    Set game mode to TDM
    Enter Hardcore in the "Name" field.

    P5yro4U.jpg


    If you don't get any results then their probably aren't any HC TDM servers up in your region.
    DenNassi wrote: »
    DenNassi wrote: »
    The option in multiplayer for hardcore team deathmatch is gone. My ping and settings are okay.
    I only see rush and conquer, and can see the server list and join..but these games are not hardcore..

    Is this a router problem?

    server browser issue.

    Do not think so.. I can see 100+ games and join them.
    In multiplayer -> custom games, there are only 3 options : rush,conquer and one other..but no hardcore team

    Off topic .... This discussion is on Hit Detection.

    regardless .........

    If you go to Multiplayer -> Custom Games there's "Quick Match" options for several Hardcore game modes. What's listed is always changing and is more than likely based on availability. Currently there is Conquest, Tsar Conquest, Rush and Back to Basics Conquest.

    Best option is to create a filter for HC TDM.
    Multiplayer -> Server Browser -> Filter
    Set game mode to TDM
    Enter Hardcore in the "Name" field.

    P5yro4U.jpg


    If you don't get any results then their probably aren't any HC TDM servers up in your region.

    Thanks..will try tomorrow
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I was more on about the way damage is dealt to other players from a player dropping packets.
    What you say about movement is correct I experience being killed by players who aren't even firing there guns or looking in my direction yet ,or players whos damage and bullets round the corner before there character model does, or trying to shoot at a playing is standing but my shots ghost though him because he is actually prone. It all still happens very frequently the only netcode changes ive noticed is if I can fight the aim desist and actually get my sight on the lagging player hit detection is better than before the netcode changes.

    What you're experiencing seems to be heavily impacted by aim assist, as far as lining up the real position vs the ghost. The damage aspect you are sighting doesn't happen when facing "true" above threshold players. You'll get from those that have an unstable connection.

    say 140ms with spikes to 240ms that hang for a few seconds. Can even happen to players with 30ms avg spiking to 110ms. That large variance in latency screams packet loss.

    Nothing can really be done about those situation beyond outright denying their hits during those spikes. Ultimately IMO it would be best if players with high variance latency would be kicked from the server "Unstable Connection", regardless there underlying average. The same should apply to those with high packet loss or even routine excessive packet loss.

    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I was more on about the way damage is dealt to other players from a player dropping packets.
    What you say about movement is correct I experience being killed by players who aren't even firing there guns or looking in my direction yet ,or players whos damage and bullets round the corner before there character model does, or trying to shoot at a playing is standing but my shots ghost though him because he is actually prone. It all still happens very frequently the only netcode changes ive noticed is if I can fight the aim desist and actually get my sight on the lagging player hit detection is better than before the netcode changes.

    What you're experiencing seems to be heavily impacted by aim assist, as far as lining up the real position vs the ghost. The damage aspect you are sighting doesn't happen when facing "true" above threshold players. You'll get from those that have an unstable connection.

    say 140ms with spikes to 240ms that hang for a few seconds. Can even happen to players with 30ms avg spiking to 110ms. That large variance in latency screams packet loss.

    Nothing can really be done about those situation beyond outright denying their hits during those spikes. Ultimately IMO it would be best if players with high variance latency would be kicked from the server "Unstable Connection", regardless there underlying average. The same should apply to those with high packet loss or even routine excessive packet loss.

    The players with the spiking pings are by far the worst and cause the most issues, but its possible to have lower level packet loss (yellow packet loss icon) and still have a low stable ping displayed on the scoreboard i've tested it, i've also experienced being held by damage and stacked damage from what on the scoreboards appears to be a low latency player I don't know how much packet loss it takes before your ping starts spiking in the scoreboard but I suspect its quite a high amount.
    Also playing with minor packet loss the game just plays so much better, hit detection is near perfect no more aim desist and the game just seems so much better in sync.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I was more on about the way damage is dealt to other players from a player dropping packets.
    What you say about movement is correct I experience being killed by players who aren't even firing there guns or looking in my direction yet ,or players whos damage and bullets round the corner before there character model does, or trying to shoot at a playing is standing but my shots ghost though him because he is actually prone. It all still happens very frequently the only netcode changes ive noticed is if I can fight the aim desist and actually get my sight on the lagging player hit detection is better than before the netcode changes.

    What you're experiencing seems to be heavily impacted by aim assist, as far as lining up the real position vs the ghost. The damage aspect you are sighting doesn't happen when facing "true" above threshold players. You'll get from those that have an unstable connection.

    say 140ms with spikes to 240ms that hang for a few seconds. Can even happen to players with 30ms avg spiking to 110ms. That large variance in latency screams packet loss.

    Nothing can really be done about those situation beyond outright denying their hits during those spikes. Ultimately IMO it would be best if players with high variance latency would be kicked from the server "Unstable Connection", regardless there underlying average. The same should apply to those with high packet loss or even routine excessive packet loss.

    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.

    Game compensates for **** causing 10x more ****
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The players with the spiking pings are by far the worst and cause the most issues, but its possible to have lower level packet loss (yellow packet loss icon) and still have a low stable ping displayed on the scoreboard i've tested it, i've also experienced being held by damage and stacked damage from what on the scoreboards appears to be a low latency player I don't know how much packet loss it takes before your ping starts spiking in the scoreboard but I suspect its quite a high amount.
    Also playing with minor packet loss the game just plays so much better, hit detection is near perfect no more aim desist and the game just seems so much better in sync.

    Yeah as I mentioned. "30ms avg spiking to 110ms".

    FYI console ping only updates every 5 seconds from what I recall. PC updates once a second.
    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.

    If they kicked for garbage connections then it would be fine. The best direction at the moment would be to provide better tools to the rsp. Ping kicker was a start. But we need something that's more robust...jitter/variance/packet loss kicking. Having lower options for the rsp would be nice too.
  • rock1obsta
    3803 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The players with the spiking pings are by far the worst and cause the most issues, but its possible to have lower level packet loss (yellow packet loss icon) and still have a low stable ping displayed on the scoreboard i've tested it, i've also experienced being held by damage and stacked damage from what on the scoreboards appears to be a low latency player I don't know how much packet loss it takes before your ping starts spiking in the scoreboard but I suspect its quite a high amount.
    Also playing with minor packet loss the game just plays so much better, hit detection is near perfect no more aim desist and the game just seems so much better in sync.

    Yeah as I mentioned. "30ms avg spiking to 110ms".

    FYI console ping only updates every 5 seconds from what I recall. PC updates once a second.
    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.

    If they kicked for garbage connections then it would be fine. The best direction at the moment would be to provide better tools to the rsp. Ping kicker was a start. But we need something that's more robust...jitter/variance/packet loss kicking. Having lower options for the rsp would be nice too.

    There must be games out there that do exactly that, kick people for connections that are so bad it affects other players.

    DICE has an unhealthy obsession with trying to please everyone rather than the majority, so I don't see anything like this ever happening in Battlefield.(sadly)
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2017
    rock1obsta wrote:
    There must be games out there that do exactly that, kick people for connections that are so bad it affects other players.

    DICE has an unhealthy obsession with trying to please everyone rather than the majority, so I don't see anything like this ever happening in Battlefield.(sadly)

    All other games including past BF titles where you have rental servers you could Kick/Ban from within the game. BF1 you have to leave the game (literally disconnect), then go to the admin section to ban. You don't really want a connection ban sitting there taking up a slot of the limited 100 max. So you Ban, then once he's disco'd you release the ban to free up the ban slot for the real jokers.

    So more and better tools are needed. Any Easy ingame Kick with reason option would be a good start on that front.

    Kicked by Admin "Unstable Connection"
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The players with the spiking pings are by far the worst and cause the most issues, but its possible to have lower level packet loss (yellow packet loss icon) and still have a low stable ping displayed on the scoreboard i've tested it, i've also experienced being held by damage and stacked damage from what on the scoreboards appears to be a low latency player I don't know how much packet loss it takes before your ping starts spiking in the scoreboard but I suspect its quite a high amount.
    Also playing with minor packet loss the game just plays so much better, hit detection is near perfect no more aim desist and the game just seems so much better in sync.

    Yeah as I mentioned. "30ms avg spiking to 110ms".

    FYI console ping only updates every 5 seconds from what I recall. PC updates once a second.
    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.

    If they kicked for garbage connections then it would be fine. The best direction at the moment would be to provide better tools to the rsp. Ping kicker was a start. But we need something that's more robust...jitter/variance/packet loss kicking. Having lower options for the rsp would be nice too.

    I mean, yeah.

    But RSP still avoids quickmatch. There is no fixing this while the public is steered away from custom (and possibly superior) experiences.

    I've given up on DICE making meaningful changes, most of the devs are apologists. (Most, not all, obviously the devs that truly understand and listen are in the minority).

    It's disheartening to voice concerns, only to be told your concerns are not a problem. Just a bunch of 40 year Olds playing Pokémon go, no way things are going to get better.
  • misisipiRivrRat
    815 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The players with the spiking pings are by far the worst and cause the most issues, but its possible to have lower level packet loss (yellow packet loss icon) and still have a low stable ping displayed on the scoreboard i've tested it, i've also experienced being held by damage and stacked damage from what on the scoreboards appears to be a low latency player I don't know how much packet loss it takes before your ping starts spiking in the scoreboard but I suspect its quite a high amount.
    Also playing with minor packet loss the game just plays so much better, hit detection is near perfect no more aim desist and the game just seems so much better in sync.

    Yeah as I mentioned. "30ms avg spiking to 110ms".

    FYI console ping only updates every 5 seconds from what I recall. PC updates once a second.
    Basically, gameplay is **** because game accepts ****.

    If they kicked for garbage connections then it would be fine. The best direction at the moment would be to provide better tools to the rsp. Ping kicker was a start. But we need something that's more robust...jitter/variance/packet loss kicking. Having lower options for the rsp would be nice too.

    I mean, yeah.

    But RSP still avoids quickmatch. There is no fixing this while the public is steered away from custom (and possibly superior) experiences.

    I've given up on DICE making meaningful changes, most of the devs are apologists. (Most, not all, obviously the devs that truly understand and listen are in the minority).

    It's disheartening to voice concerns, only to be told your concerns are not a problem. Just a bunch of 40 year Olds playing Pokémon go, no way things are going to get better.

    Damn. You used to be so optimistic about changes coming to the game. I'm sorry you feel like this. Sadly more and more people see the game in this light. The BS in game just gets so old.
Sign In or Register to comment.