Every game there are 100ms+ players

Comments

  • Kranden
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/dptz6h/this_was_my_first_experience_playing_the_pacific/

    My first experience playing The Pacific.

    Matchmaking is currently broken and needs to be fixed.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ackers75 said:
    (Quote)
    bufferbloat, route congestion, packet fragmentation .... actually a huge list of reasons for jitter.

    But how does that translate into coming top of the board by rather a large margin with 31 for 8 deaths!
    Yet people like myself with a 16ms ping with zero packet loss and a 1ms of jitter get one shot killed and shot miles behind cover for fun!

    updated my previous post .... read your initial post wrong (multitasking).
  • warslag
    1601 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited October 2019
    Previous titles such as BF4, BF3 etc allowed you to rent a server from a 3rd party GSP offered datacenter locations worldwide. This provided servers a lot closer to groups of players. Closer meant lower pings, less loss and variance. 

    BF1 and BF V use AWS cloud servers which are limited to specific regions. Following link shows all "currently" available locations. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/
    Battlefield 1 & V could be using AWS Gamelift (dedicated gaming servers) ... which is limited to the following locations. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region
    Russia doesn't seem to have any data centres, from either Google (GCE) or Amazon (AWS), or even any planned by those two. If that's the case, then how will the rental server system handle them? They won't be able to rent servers nearby, as there are no data centres in Russia, and they may not necessarily be allowed to play on rented servers elsewhere, due to possible ping restrictions implemented by server admins. Even the UK doesn't have a data centre for BF:V, anymore, unless they reopen it. As you were saying, when you can rent a clan server from a 3rd party provider, you can choose one that's on your doorstep or close as possible. I think there will still be some major blackspots in the server coverage. Unless anyone knows differently.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    warslag said:
    Previous titles such as BF4, BF3 etc allowed you to rent a server from a 3rd party GSP offered datacenter locations worldwide. This provided servers a lot closer to groups of players. Closer meant lower pings, less loss and variance. 

    BF1 and BF V use AWS cloud servers which are limited to specific regions. Following link shows all "currently" available locations. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/
    Battlefield 1 & V could be using AWS Gamelift (dedicated gaming servers) ... which is limited to the following locations. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region
    Russia doesn't seem to have any data centres, from either Google (GCE) or Amazon (AWS), or even any planned by those two. If that's the case, then how will the rental server system handle them? They won't be able to rent servers nearby, as there are no data centres in Russia, and they may not necessarily be allowed to play on rented servers elsewhere, due to possible ping restrictions implemented by server admins. Even the UK doesn't have a data centre for BF:V, anymore, unless they reopen it. As you were saying, when you can rent a clan server from a 3rd party provider, you can choose one that's on your doorstep or close as possible. I think there will still be some major blackspots in the server coverage. Unless anyone knows differently.

    EA's RSP is based on AWS cloud servers .... same servers you play on now. EA's RSP is about customizing your own play experience.... Custom Games. If a group sets up a server with pings limits that excludes you, then play on official servers.

    The old system BF4, BF3, BF2 used 3rd party GSP's. NFOservers.com, Gamerservers.com, Multiplay, i3D.net etc. All servers including official where run through these providers. EA changed that with BF1 via AWS.
  • warslag
    1601 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 2019
    warslag said:
    Previous titles such as BF4, BF3 etc allowed you to rent a server from a 3rd party GSP offered datacenter locations worldwide. This provided servers a lot closer to groups of players. Closer meant lower pings, less loss and variance. 

    BF1 and BF V use AWS cloud servers which are limited to specific regions. Following link shows all "currently" available locations. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/
    Battlefield 1 & V could be using AWS Gamelift (dedicated gaming servers) ... which is limited to the following locations. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region
    Russia doesn't seem to have any data centres, from either Google (GCE) or Amazon (AWS), or even any planned by those two. If that's the case, then how will the rental server system handle them? They won't be able to rent servers nearby, as there are no data centres in Russia, and they may not necessarily be allowed to play on rented servers elsewhere, due to possible ping restrictions implemented by server admins. Even the UK doesn't have a data centre for BF:V, anymore, unless they reopen it. As you were saying, when you can rent a clan server from a 3rd party provider, you can choose one that's on your doorstep or close as possible. I think there will still be some major blackspots in the server coverage. Unless anyone knows differently.

    EA's RSP is based on AWS cloud servers .... same servers you play on now. EA's RSP is about customizing your own play experience.... Custom Games. If a group sets up a server with pings limits that excludes you, then play on official servers.

    The old system BF4, BF3, BF2 used 3rd party GSP's. NFOservers.com, Gamerservers.com, Multiplay, i3D.net etc. All servers including official where run through these providers. EA changed that with BF1 via AWS.
    Well, for a lot of BF:V players, that will mean that they don't have servers worth renting because they are nowhere near where they are. Plus, they may possibly face the prospect of constantly being kicked from rented servers that are not in their own region. Russian and British players, and perhaps many others, will end up disappointed if the rental server program doesn't have options acceptable to them. It'll probably only be a really good deal for American and continental European players. Because the main benefit of renting a server - in the context of limiting ping - is kicking players who have no other place to go except back to the main data centres - which are still not in their region. The real issue of providing more players with server options near to them will not be solved by RSP. Even though high pings seems to spoil the game for low pings, it is not very nice to just boot high ping players off those servers and ignore the fact that they will be stuck playing in those same old data centres (potentially).

    EA must do some deals with other server providers around the world to ensure all Battlefield players get the opportunity to play on a server close to where they are playing the game.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    warslag said:
    warslag said:
    Previous titles such as BF4, BF3 etc allowed you to rent a server from a 3rd party GSP offered datacenter locations worldwide. This provided servers a lot closer to groups of players. Closer meant lower pings, less loss and variance. 

    BF1 and BF V use AWS cloud servers which are limited to specific regions. Following link shows all "currently" available locations. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/
    Battlefield 1 & V could be using AWS Gamelift (dedicated gaming servers) ... which is limited to the following locations. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#gamelift_region
    Russia doesn't seem to have any data centres, from either Google (GCE) or Amazon (AWS), or even any planned by those two. If that's the case, then how will the rental server system handle them? They won't be able to rent servers nearby, as there are no data centres in Russia, and they may not necessarily be allowed to play on rented servers elsewhere, due to possible ping restrictions implemented by server admins. Even the UK doesn't have a data centre for BF:V, anymore, unless they reopen it. As you were saying, when you can rent a clan server from a 3rd party provider, you can choose one that's on your doorstep or close as possible. I think there will still be some major blackspots in the server coverage. Unless anyone knows differently.

    EA's RSP is based on AWS cloud servers .... same servers you play on now. EA's RSP is about customizing your own play experience.... Custom Games. If a group sets up a server with pings limits that excludes you, then play on official servers.

    The old system BF4, BF3, BF2 used 3rd party GSP's. NFOservers.com, Gamerservers.com, Multiplay, i3D.net etc. All servers including official where run through these providers. EA changed that with BF1 via AWS.
    Well, for a lot of BF:V players, that will mean that they don't have servers worth renting because they are nowhere near where they are. Plus, they may possibly face the prospect of constantly being kicked from rented servers that are not in their own region. Russian and British players, and perhaps many others, will end up disappointed if the rental server program doesn't have options acceptable to them. It'll probably only be a really good deal for American and continental European players. Because the main benefit of renting a server - in the context of limiting ping - is kicking players who have no other place to go except back to the main data centres - which are still not in their region. The real issue of providing more players with server options near to them will not be solved by RSP. Even though high pings seems to spoil the game for low pings, it is not very nice to just boot high ping players off those servers and ignore the fact that they will be stuck playing in those same old data centres (potentially).

    EA must do some deals with other server providers around the world to ensure all Battlefield players get the opportunity to play on a server close to where they are playing the game.
    EA's current approach to RSP is to let anyone at no cost spin up a server instance on the network. This is limited to a set number of instances globally. These instances reset/clear at a specific time a day. Basically a reboot. There's lots of info on it. I think there's a sticky on it actually.

    Eventually they want to release a pay for version. More control no instance shutdowns etc.
  • Deadzmcgee
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This thread is hilarious and full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.

    You don't need sub 40 ping for everyone to play.  Games existed before the mid 2000s...  If you want real servers, ask for the ability to run your own servers (which we should), otherwise these are just pub games and someone having 90 ping has near as no impact on you.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's fun reading all this tbh.
  • MOSSAD-RECRUITER
    344 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    100-130 should be the upper limit, before kick take place.
  • ackers75
    2576 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Private servers are all well and good but on console am not sure Sony and Microsoft are going to be too happy with the ability to kick due to ping!
  • NLBartmaN
    4080 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    Deadzmcgee wrote: »
    This thread is hilarious and full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.
    You don't need sub 40 ping for everyone to play.  Games existed before the mid 2000s...  If you want real servers, ask for the ability to run your own servers (which we should), otherwise these are just pub games and someone having 90 ping has near as no impact on you.

    So when a game Dev that actually works on netcode explains that it has impact, you just ignore that?

    The only way for a game to feel consistent is when every player is within a maximum of 60ms of each other and has as little as variation as possible, but the closer the pings, the better the experience.

    Also the reason games feel perfect on a LAN.

    So ping based matchmaking is the way to go, if enough players play a game.

    BTW, gaming before 2000 we did on LAN's (with BBQ and Beers), when dial up modems were introduced there was insane amount of teleporting, so we just did not (or very limited) game online, that started happening more with ADSL/Cable connections.

    In the mid 2000's we used our own (at home) servers with ping limits and even then a player with a ping above 40ms just had a trash connection or was playing far Out of Region, just like they are today.

    The only problem is: we can't host our own (ping limited) local servers with BF V and Dice refuses to add better (more resources for each virtual server) and more local servers.
    Post edited by NLBartmaN on
  • MrCamp121
    882 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    Deadzmcgee wrote: »
    This thread is hilarious and full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.
    You don't need sub 40 ping for everyone to play.  Games existed before the mid 2000s...  If you want real servers, ask for the ability to run your own servers (which we should), otherwise these are just pub games and someone having 90 ping has near as no impact on you.

    Oh how dice shouldve used this logic when BFV released....wait they did with the BFV release trailer. Worked out well there...
  • BtheReaper49
    347 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    Deadzmcgee wrote: »
    This thread is hilarious and full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.
    You don't need sub 40 ping for everyone to play.  Games existed before the mid 2000s...  If you want real servers, ask for the ability to run your own servers (which we should), otherwise these are just pub games and someone having 90 ping has near as no impact on you.

    So when a Dec that actually works on netcode explains that it has impact, you just ignore that?

    The only way for a game to feel consistent is when every player is within a maximum of 60ms of each other and has as little as variation as possible, but the closer the pings, the better the experience.

    Also the reason games feel perfect on a LAN.

    So ping based matchmaking is the way to go, if enough players play a game.

    BTW, gaming before 2000 we did on LAN's (with BBQ and Beers), when dial up modems were introduced there was insane amount of teleporting, so we just did not (or very limited) game online, that started happening more with ADSL connections.

    In the mid 2000's we used our own (at home) servers with ping limits and even then a player with a ping above 40ms just had a trash connection or was playing far Out of Region, just like they are today.

    The only problem is: we can't host our own (ping limited) local servers with BF V and Dice refuses to add better (more resources for each virtual server) and more local servers.

    Yup, they're in denial as to why this game plays so poorly for a lot of people
  • diagoro
    1580 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    Deadzmcgee wrote: »
    This thread is hilarious and full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.
    You don't need sub 40 ping for everyone to play.  Games existed before the mid 2000s...  If you want real servers, ask for the ability to run your own servers (which we should), otherwise these are just pub games and someone having 90 ping has near as no impact on you.

    So when a Dec that actually works on netcode explains that it has impact, you just ignore that?

    The only way for a game to feel consistent is when every player is within a maximum of 60ms of each other and has as little as variation as possible, but the closer the pings, the better the experience.

    Also the reason games feel perfect on a LAN.

    So ping based matchmaking is the way to go, if enough players play a game.

    BTW, gaming before 2000 we did on LAN's (with BBQ and Beers), when dial up modems were introduced there was insane amount of teleporting, so we just did not (or very limited) game online, that started happening more with ADSL connections.

    In the mid 2000's we used our own (at home) servers with ping limits and even then a player with a ping above 40ms just had a trash connection or was playing far Out of Region, just like they are today.

    The only problem is: we can't host our own (ping limited) local servers with BF V and Dice refuses to add better (more resources for each virtual server) and more local servers.

    Yup, they're in denial as to why this game plays so poorly for a lot of people

    I highly doubt they're in denial, considering they've used the solution in the past.

    They just refuse to address it again, like balancing. Both madsive issues that Dice temain silent on.
  • ragnarok013
    3610 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    ackers75 said:
    On my last game of battlefield v the top player of the opposing team had huge amounts of latency variation.. 40ms-82-111-42-62 so can somebody explain how on earth you can go 31 for 8 with such huge amounts of variation!
    Any explanation will do because this is just ridiculous
    ackers75 that type of latency variation is usually a result of the route that the person's ISP has chosen. You can run a UOTrace and see your latency variation at each node which is illuminating at times when your ping is low but you experience lag.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ackers75 said:
    On my last game of battlefield v the top player of the opposing team had huge amounts of latency variation.. 40ms-82-111-42-62 so can somebody explain how on earth you can go 31 for 8 with such huge amounts of variation!
    Any explanation will do because this is just ridiculous
    ackers75 that type of latency variation is usually a result of the route that the person's ISP has chosen. You can run a UOTrace and see your latency variation at each node which is illuminating at times when your ping is low but you experience lag.
    I initially read his post the same way. Yet he wants to know how a player can have a 3+ kdr and perform well with high lat variance.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    (Quote)
    I initially read his post the same way. Yet he wants to know how a player can have a 3+ kdr and perform well with high lat variance.
    I think one thing people tend to not understand that you can still be a skilled player and have a high ping / latency variance.

    Ive had the chance to play in multiple regions turkey 55ms germany 10-30ms Korea 5ms or 200ms USA 80ms now 60ms.
    None of these changed my overall play style or scores for the most part. Sure having a high variance can have "some" advantages but having played with it plenty of times overseas I feel its much harder to play at least to me due to me having to lead shots or time my peaks. Heads up engagements will result in a loss in most scenario against another skilled player which forces me to flank even more than originally do.

    Just my opinion.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    (Quote)
    I initially read his post the same way. Yet he wants to know how a player can have a 3+ kdr and perform well with high lat variance.
    I think one thing people tend to not understand that you can still be a skilled player and have a high ping / latency variance.

    Ive had the chance to play in multiple regions turkey 55ms germany 10-30ms Korea 5ms or 200ms USA 80ms now 60ms.
    None of these changed my overall play style or scores for the most part. Sure having a high variance can have "some" advantages but having played with it plenty of times overseas I feel its much harder to play at least to me due to me having to lead shots or time my peaks. Heads up engagements will result in a loss in most scenario against another skilled player which forces me to flank even more than originally do.

    Just my opinion.
    100% agree.

    Yet with a high ping you "know" you have to lead shots. Low ping you shoot directly at your targets current position. If you don't get registration, then you start sweeping. At this point any tactical/positional/first to shoot advantage is gone.

    LP's don't know their target is an HP or an LP and that matters greatly.
  • warslag
    1601 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 2019
    (Quote)
    I initially read his post the same way. Yet he wants to know how a player can have a 3+ kdr and perform well with high lat variance.
    I think one thing people tend to not understand that you can still be a skilled player and have a high ping / latency variance.

    Ive had the chance to play in multiple regions turkey 55ms germany 10-30ms Korea 5ms or 200ms USA 80ms now 60ms.
    None of these changed my overall play style or scores for the most part. Sure having a high variance can have "some" advantages but having played with it plenty of times overseas I feel its much harder to play at least to me due to me having to lead shots or time my peaks. Heads up engagements will result in a loss in most scenario against another skilled player which forces me to flank even more than originally do.

    Just my opinion.
    When I played BF:3 within my region I was an awesome player. When I played on American servers I was still pretty awesome. But now players are saying that they are losing out to players who have high pings. I don't really believe it's all to do with ping. I know this because of what I've just said about BF:3. They've done something else to these games but I've no idea what it is. Maybe providing players with servers closer to where they are would be a good start.

    I think some people are just messing around with us. Players are reporting their games are flooded with people who aren't playing fairly. Then you watch some YouTuber and his games are fine. It doesn't make any sense. You are also saying that none of the things reported in this thread are having a similar sort of affect on you, which is also how I felt in BF:3. So something must be different. They've changed something.

    I play Apex Legends on PC and that game is just absolutely mental at the moment because of all these issues. But there are still streamers and YouTubers who don't seem affected by it.

    When I played BF:3 and was god-like hundreds of players said I was cheating. I can't even get a kill in Apex. It is like playing against robots. I don't think servers and pings or even netcode explains it at all.
  • EdManLee
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    warslag said:
    (Quote)
    I initially read his post the same way. Yet he wants to know how a player can have a 3+ kdr and perform well with high lat variance.
    I think one thing people tend to not understand that you can still be a skilled player and have a high ping / latency variance.

    Ive had the chance to play in multiple regions turkey 55ms germany 10-30ms Korea 5ms or 200ms USA 80ms now 60ms.
    None of these changed my overall play style or scores for the most part. Sure having a high variance can have "some" advantages but having played with it plenty of times overseas I feel its much harder to play at least to me due to me having to lead shots or time my peaks. Heads up engagements will result in a loss in most scenario against another skilled player which forces me to flank even more than originally do.

    Just my opinion.
    When I played BF:3 within my region I was an awesome player. When I played on American servers I was still pretty awesome. But now players are saying that they are losing out to players who have high pings. I don't really believe it's all to do with ping. I know this because of what I've just said about BF:3. They've done something else to these games but I've no idea what it is. Maybe providing players with servers closer to where they are would be a good start.

    I think some people are just messing around with us. Players are reporting their games are flooded with people who aren't playing fairly. Then you watch some YouTuber and his games are fine. It doesn't make any sense. You are also saying that none of the things reported in this thread are having a similar sort of affect on you, which is also how I felt in BF:3. So something must be different. They've changed something.

    I play Apex Legends on PC and that game is just absolutely mental at the moment because of all these issues. But there are still streamers and YouTubers who don't seem affected by it.

    When I played BF:3 and was god-like hundreds of players said I was cheating. I can't even get a kill in Apex. It is like playing against robots. I don't think servers and pings or even netcode explains it at all.
    BF3 virtually every user had regular broadband. I remember playing CoD MW3 and a regular lobby would be UK and USA, which had far fewer connectivity issues. I'm thinking it is partly down to the massive difference between connections now (someone on 1000mb fibre vs some rural 2mb broadband user on wifi). As an EU player I can tell you every game seems to treat the EU as 1 zone, irrespective of connection. FIFA, CoD, BF etc. all place me largely against people from the fringes of the continent despite there being probably 20-30million people within a 100 mile radius of me. Personally, I'd like to see UK, Ireland and Scandinavia treated as 1 zone, continental EU as a separate zone. I'd also like to see restrictions on who can join lobbies based on connection. I got so irritated with the constant bs while I was joining the lowest ping lobby possible that I tried joining a lobby on the other side of the world. Ridiculously, you can! ... and with my 250ms ping I was able to run into the open, gun down a few people before my ghostly character eventually got hit from the multitude of people firing at me. Seriously, go to server browser, pick the region furthest away from you, try a game and see.
Sign In or Register to comment.