Weekly BF

The netcode in this game is so bad I feel Dice is faking the online shooter experience.

Comments

  • ackers75
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 20
    onylra_II wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »

    Tend not to listen to battlenonsense as he has to run tests through a testing environment and not actual real games.

    Yeah I agree, his test are mostly on empty or controlled servers and on PC.
    That tells nothing about what the experience is on console and with some players with a very poor connection.
    He also does not test with different connections, just with his own.

    He just makes a statement that based on his test with BF V the experience on console with the limited hardware (framerate) and 30Hz servers things must feel a lot worse, but he does not test this.

    Ok dude, listen to Ackers instead then ... seriously? Hmm, lemme think - methodical, detailed testing in a 'clean' environment, or some random whinger's evidentially-impaired insistence that BFV "holds your hand"?? SMH.

    You want some pepper with that salt!

    You can test and test and test but it means nothing in the real world.
    It’s not battlenonsenses fault because it’s just not possible to do!

    If you like many others think apex and fortnite have worse netcode it’s simply because lag comp/netcode is less favourable with these games plain and simple
  • onylra_II
    76 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    onylra_II wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »

    Tend not to listen to battlenonsense as he has to run tests through a testing environment and not actual real games.

    Yeah I agree, his test are mostly on empty or controlled servers and on PC.
    That tells nothing about what the experience is on console and with some players with a very poor connection.
    He also does not test with different connections, just with his own.

    He just makes a statement that based on his test with BF V the experience on console with the limited hardware (framerate) and 30Hz servers things must feel a lot worse, but he does not test this.

    Ok dude, listen to Ackers instead then ... seriously? Hmm, lemme think - methodical, detailed testing in a 'clean' environment, or some random whinger's evidentially-impaired insistence that BFV "holds your hand"?? SMH.

    You want some pepper with that salt!

    You can test and test and test but it means nothing in the real world.
    It’s not battlenonsenses fault because it’s just not possible to do!

    If you like many others think apex and fortnite have worse netcode it’s simply because lag comp/netcode is less favourable with these games plain and simple

    Prove it. (I'm not holding my breath)
  • ackers75
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    onylra_II wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »
    onylra_II wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »

    Tend not to listen to battlenonsense as he has to run tests through a testing environment and not actual real games.

    Yeah I agree, his test are mostly on empty or controlled servers and on PC.
    That tells nothing about what the experience is on console and with some players with a very poor connection.
    He also does not test with different connections, just with his own.

    He just makes a statement that based on his test with BF V the experience on console with the limited hardware (framerate) and 30Hz servers things must feel a lot worse, but he does not test this.

    Ok dude, listen to Ackers instead then ... seriously? Hmm, lemme think - methodical, detailed testing in a 'clean' environment, or some random whinger's evidentially-impaired insistence that BFV "holds your hand"?? SMH.

    You want some pepper with that salt!

    You can test and test and test but it means nothing in the real world.
    It’s not battlenonsenses fault because it’s just not possible to do!

    If you like many others think apex and fortnite have worse netcode it’s simply because lag comp/netcode is less favourable with these games plain and simple

    Prove it. (I'm not holding my breath)

    Just use a little common sense.
    It’s been proven with battlefield v that players with 250ms difference can still damage players behind cover.
    How do you think that’s gonna work with fortnite?
  • LoneGunman74
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I went back to the fun Battlefields....3 and 4. At least in those you can take some hits and have a bit of time to run to cover or hit the ground, but in 5 it's like insta-kill. Yes, I've been killed behind cover when the enemy possibly couldn't have.
  • ackers75
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 20
    I went back to the fun Battlefields....3 and 4. At least in those you can take some hits and have a bit of time to run to cover or hit the ground, but in 5 it's like insta-kill. Yes, I've been killed behind cover when the enemy possibly couldn't have.

    Insta kill is down to bundling multiple bullets into one packet.
    Yep back to netcode and babysitting people with shoddy connections.
    Packet loss and high jitter to blame!

    Killed behind cover due to massive amounts of lag compensation.
    High ping player still has you in his sights when you are well behind cover!
    Can happen even when ping difference is over 300ms lol
  • Marine_IraHayes2
    237 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    Yep...being still while prone is quite a battle in itself.
    Maybe it’s me but does anyone else have a issue with hitting the prone button and as soon as you go prone it jumps back up?
    I even programmed prone to its own button. Didn’t work.
    Also...trying to get the bipeds to deploy has gotten me killed countless times.
  • onylra_II
    76 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    It’s been proven with battlefield v that players with 250ms difference can still damage players behind cover.

    Duh. Of course you can, if you compensate for the serverside hitreg by leading your shots. If this happens to you, they probably deserved it, and would rock you even harder if they had low ping. There's literally an option to display an icon when you've switched to serverside hitreg, i.e. are lagging so hard you need to lead your shots.

    In Oceania we get the odd Asian 'migrant' (fleeing cheaters) with over 200 ping, and they get nothing but shredded, lucky to get a single kill but dying dozens of times. I feel sorry for them, but they're so grateful to escape cheaters that they'll wear it - I wish they wouldn't come, but it is what it is.

    Anybody who doubts my words should just try to play BFV outside of their normal region, with over ~150 ping (or 'lag switch'). See how much of an advantage you get. I dare you. Meanwhile, no such protection exists in the BRs under discussion. You're talking complete rubbish, verging on slander.
  • G-Gnu
    1422 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.
  • WetFishDB
    2022 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.
  • G-Gnu
    1422 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.
  • WetFishDB
    2022 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.

    It would somewhat defeat the benefit of using UDP though wouldn’t it? The whole point of using UDP is about getting information from sender to recipient as fast as possible. The packets aren’t numbered normally and neither the sender or recipient are particularly informed when a specific packet is lost/dropped.

    Having to re-send packets would mean they would have to be numbered and sequenced, and that doesn’t feel right to me, but I’m not a developer so wouldn’t know for sure. What made you think they were resending specific packets?

    I know they obviously have some mechanics to measure packet loss (as we get the symbol in the game), but my suspicion is that’s more just an overall count within a period rather than knowing which specific packets were losses and resent etc.
  • ackers75
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    onylra_II wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »
    It’s been proven with battlefield v that players with 250ms difference can still damage players behind cover.

    Duh. Of course you can, if you compensate for the serverside hitreg by leading your shots. If this happens to you, they probably deserved it, and would rock you even harder if they had low ping. There's literally an option to display an icon when you've switched to serverside hitreg, i.e. are lagging so hard you need to lead your shots.

    In Oceania we get the odd Asian 'migrant' (fleeing cheaters) with over 200 ping, and they get nothing but shredded, lucky to get a single kill but dying dozens of times. I feel sorry for them, but they're so grateful to escape cheaters that they'll wear it - I wish they wouldn't come, but it is what it is.

    Anybody who doubts my words should just try to play BFV outside of their normal region, with over ~150 ping (or 'lag switch'). See how much of an advantage you get. I dare you. Meanwhile, no such protection exists in the BRs under discussion. You're talking complete rubbish, verging on slander.

    It is simply not even remotely acceptable to be giving lag comp to 200ms + players!

    I have seen ridiculously high ping players doing very well at the top of the leader boards it’s as plain as day to see!

    “Slander”. Looooooooool
    How many times does the netcode in fortnite or apex allow 200ms + players to kill players behind cover?

    Or how many times does apex/fortnite stack multiple bullets into single packets because of large amounts of packet loss or high jitter?

    They don’t because giving these people a good experience with such poor connections gives people with good connections a bad experience plain and simple!
    Please do not even put battlefield v netcode in the same sentence as fortnite/apex netcode because it doesn’t deserve to be!
    Post edited by ackers75 on
  • ackers75
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.

    It would somewhat defeat the benefit of using UDP though wouldn’t it? The whole point of using UDP is about getting information from sender to recipient as fast as possible. The packets aren’t numbered normally and neither the sender or recipient are particularly informed when a specific packet is lost/dropped.

    Having to re-send packets would mean they would have to be numbered and sequenced, and that doesn’t feel right to me, but I’m not a developer so wouldn’t know for sure. What made you think they were resending specific packets?

    I know they obviously have some mechanics to measure packet loss (as we get the symbol in the game), but my suspicion is that’s more just an overall count within a period rather than knowing which specific packets were losses and resent etc.

    The threshold was raised as to when the packet loss icon became visible
  • VOLBANKER
    1034 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Willhe64 wrote: »
    Congrats Dice on the worst online game experience I've ever had. Other games have set the bar pretty low but you managed to walk right under it without even crouching. 20 hours in and I'm fed up and done with this crap. I'll finish the single player and try and kid myself that I got my moneys worth. Truth is, at half price I still feel ripped off.

    My experience has been that I didn't even begin to enjoy the game more until I began playing better and that took a lot more than twenty hours. For whatever reason or combination of reasons BFV doesn't feel good at first, it takes awhile to become attuned to this game, so consider putting in considerably more time before you make up your mind. I'm never going to be eSports ready, but once I figured out a few things I sure had more fun. Your mileage may vary, but trying giving it at least a hundred hours and see if you aren't having a better time.

    This matches my own experience 100%.

    I loathed BF5 to begin with, I got killed all the time, hard a really hard time seeing enemies at all etc.
    However I kept playing and now I simply love the game.
    There are issues with it for sure but it's not something that ruins the fun for me.
    @Willhe64 I wish you'd give it some more time.
    I wrote some tips a while back about spectating as a means of improving your game, see here: https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/166827/a-tip-for-people-who-think-bf5-is-way-too-hard-and-who-therefore-gets-frustrated-playing-it
    It's helped me a lot.
    I wish for you that you'd end up enjoying the game as much as I am.
  • G-Gnu
    1422 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.

    It would somewhat defeat the benefit of using UDP though wouldn’t it? The whole point of using UDP is about getting information from sender to recipient as fast as possible. The packets aren’t numbered normally and neither the sender or recipient are particularly informed when a specific packet is lost/dropped.

    Having to re-send packets would mean they would have to be numbered and sequenced, and that doesn’t feel right to me, but I’m not a developer so wouldn’t know for sure. What made you think they were resending specific packets?

    I know they obviously have some mechanics to measure packet loss (as we get the symbol in the game), but my suspicion is that’s more just an overall count within a period rather than knowing which specific packets were losses and resent etc.

    I guess that depends on how you implement the function, i guess DICE´s way is faster and lighter then the SYN / FIN Bit in TCP , i am not to deep in this though.
    But as you said your self, how does anyone know if you have packet loss and how can bullet be bundled into one packet intermittent if you do not ask client to resend ?
    To know packet loss you need to have some sort of count to know that you lost one, bundled bullets can only be a packet or packets resent with updated data from the client.
  • WetFishDB
    2022 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.

    It would somewhat defeat the benefit of using UDP though wouldn’t it? The whole point of using UDP is about getting information from sender to recipient as fast as possible. The packets aren’t numbered normally and neither the sender or recipient are particularly informed when a specific packet is lost/dropped.

    Having to re-send packets would mean they would have to be numbered and sequenced, and that doesn’t feel right to me, but I’m not a developer so wouldn’t know for sure. What made you think they were resending specific packets?

    I know they obviously have some mechanics to measure packet loss (as we get the symbol in the game), but my suspicion is that’s more just an overall count within a period rather than knowing which specific packets were losses and resent etc.

    I guess that depends on how you implement the function, i guess DICE´s way is faster and lighter then the SYN / FIN Bit in TCP , i am not to deep in this though.
    But as you said your self, how does anyone know if you have packet loss and how can bullet be bundled into one packet intermittent if you do not ask client to resend ?
    To know packet loss you need to have some sort of count to know that you lost one, bundled bullets can only be a packet or packets resent with updated data from the client.

    Knowing you’ve lost packets and how many is very different from knowing which ones, re-requesting them, waiting for a response, and then processing them in sequence. The way UDP normally works is it deliberately ignores dropped packets. It’s all about speed. You could put sequencing information in there, but I’m really not sure what benefit it would give in online gaming and feels counter intuitive. Normally online games just ignore dropped packets and when it processes a packet, that updates the game state.

    I don’t know the actual cause of super bullets, as obviously the intention is that superbullets don’t exist and it’s a problem somewhere - and clearly a difficult one for them to diagnose. Therefore, the following is just conjecture...

    One way the superbullets could manifest with normal UDP use is if the packets containing the incremental damage were dropped or not processed by the client for some reason, and eventually a packet telling you you are dead is processed - taking you from full health to death instantly.

    I did read something that made me think the problem is being masked by multiple damage events being contained within a single packet now, which may simulate it being received incrementally - giving the impression of a quick but not instant kill, despite it all actually still being a single packet death perhaps. But that’s just me and my conspiracy theory.
  • G-Gnu
    1422 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    It would have been nice to see how BFV works if DICE drop the packet resend in the game.

    My understanding is that UDP doesn’t get any acknowledgment and therefore doesn’t attempt to resend packets.

    You are right in a way, but if i understand it right DICE has their own count system into the UDP packet stream and in that way can request a resend.
    UDP Protocol has no reliable transmission as per se as the TCP protocol has.

    It would somewhat defeat the benefit of using UDP though wouldn’t it? The whole point of using UDP is about getting information from sender to recipient as fast as possible. The packets aren’t numbered normally and neither the sender or recipient are particularly informed when a specific packet is lost/dropped.

    Having to re-send packets would mean they would have to be numbered and sequenced, and that doesn’t feel right to me, but I’m not a developer so wouldn’t know for sure. What made you think they were resending specific packets?

    I know they obviously have some mechanics to measure packet loss (as we get the symbol in the game), but my suspicion is that’s more just an overall count within a period rather than knowing which specific packets were losses and resent etc.

    I guess that depends on how you implement the function, i guess DICE´s way is faster and lighter then the SYN / FIN Bit in TCP , i am not to deep in this though.
    But as you said your self, how does anyone know if you have packet loss and how can bullet be bundled into one packet intermittent if you do not ask client to resend ?
    To know packet loss you need to have some sort of count to know that you lost one, bundled bullets can only be a packet or packets resent with updated data from the client.

    Knowing you’ve lost packets and how many is very different from knowing which ones, re-requesting them, waiting for a response, and then processing them in sequence. The way UDP normally works is it deliberately ignores dropped packets. It’s all about speed. You could put sequencing information in there, but I’m really not sure what benefit it would give in online gaming and feels counter intuitive. Normally online games just ignore dropped packets and when it processes a packet, that updates the game state.

    I don’t know the actual cause of super bullets, as obviously the intention is that superbullets don’t exist and it’s a problem somewhere - and clearly a difficult one for them to diagnose. Therefore, the following is just conjecture...

    One way the superbullets could manifest with normal UDP use is if the packets containing the incremental damage were dropped or not processed by the client for some reason, and eventually a packet telling you you are dead is processed - taking you from full health to death instantly.

    I did read something that made me think the problem is being masked by multiple damage events being contained within a single packet now, which may simulate it being received incrementally - giving the impression of a quick but not instant kill, despite it all actually still being a single packet death perhaps. But that’s just me and my conspiracy theory.

    https://gafferongames.com/post/udp_vs_tcp/
    They have a packet count but how high resolution of that check i dunno though.
  • Vycinas2
    932 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    ackers75 wrote: »

    Tend not to listen to battlenonsense as he has to run tests through a testing environment and not actual real games.

    Yeah I agree, his test are mostly on empty or controlled servers and on PC.
    That tells nothing about what the experience is on console and with some players with a very poor connection.
    He also does not test with different connections, just with his own.

    He just makes a statement that based on his test with BF V the experience on console with the limited hardware (framerate) and 30Hz servers things must feel a lot worse, but he does not test this.

    Its called control test environment for a reason. Its not the same as car manufacturers testing their cars in lab environment and sells it with eye watering numbers next to MPG, where in reality its very different. Chris does testing very well, provides crucial feedback and explains for dummys how stuff works.

    If you want him to do the testing on console you can always donate money for one.

    If you re having so much issues playing V visit your ISP first and see if fault lies with them (usually is). Also it would be nice to see a video of your gameplay and how other people bad connections affect you.

    Lag compensation is a cancer but its not game breaking, yet.
  • NLBartmaN
    3442 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Vycinas2 wrote: »

    Its called control test environment for a reason. Its not the same as car manufacturers testing their cars in lab environment and sells it with eye watering numbers next to MPG, where in reality its very different. Chris does testing very well, provides crucial feedback and explains for dummys how stuff works.

    If you want him to do the testing on console you can always donate money for one.

    If you re having so much issues playing V visit your ISP first and see if fault lies with them (usually is). Also it would be nice to see a video of your gameplay and how other people bad connections affect you.

    Lag compensation is a cancer but its not game breaking, yet.

    We don't have a CTE anymore with BF, one of the reasons every patch has lots of issues and things work out differently on the local network of Dice compared to the Live situation, which CTE was.

    My ISP is one of (maybe even) the best in Europe, wins lots of prices every year and is started and lead by the best IT specialists.
    When I test my connection with every possible test I always get A+ grade, Netgraph shows perfect numbers when gaming, there is NO problem with my ISP or connection.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the servers Dice has now, with the current settings (30Hz, limits, etc) and netcode CAN'T handle all the traffic at gamespeed and can't process my input in the right way.

    Adding some unstable and high pings, which the server has to compensate for and get extra work to do for when simulating hitclaims kills the (virtual) servers.

    Add to that the limited frames a console has with a game that looks and feels more demanding and is not optimized for console and you get a very bad experience.

    I have NO problems with other games, only with BF.
  • Jumpy-B-L
    683 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'm honestly starting to think DICE should just switch to hitscan. It's obvious their client/server implementation can not handle tracking individual projectiles while also providing a snappy shooting experience.

    I prefer the simulation we have now but the MP experience is frustrating. I'm not sure they can tighten up the system in place now. They've had many chances to.
Sign In or Register to comment.