Hit Detection

Comments

  • xBigOrangeHeadx
    395 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Given both low and high ping get presented a smooth game(in progress),what advantage would u like to see exactly?I would love to just have servers with player pings under 100.But given we have high pingers,what would be a comprimise you could live with without destroying the game for high pingers(who might not even realize they joined a high ping server).Yes we need to improve region coverage and perhaps it is a good idea to hide high ping server sites from the players in the server browser to begin with,but i wonder what we could do to even it out and provide the low pingers with a better game.Thanks

    I don't think it's a case of low pingers needing to accept a compromise. Optimise the game for the most common use case, which is low to medium ping. Since your net code knows when it encounters a high pinger tell them in game that they are experiencing high latency with messages on screen that they can't ignore (rather than putting icons on the right hand side of the screen). Tell them they will suffer a degraded game performance. They can't (legitimately) come on the forum raging about the game then.

    Let them connect and play, if that keeps you inline with PSN and Live guidelines, but make it clear that the game will not always work as intended.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @VBALL_MVP

    Extrapolation offset relates to network variance. Instead of showing a guess of where a person was/is during moments of mistimed/missing packets, the offset allows the server will hold onto their packet data longer to accurately show their location, making player movement smooth. The offset getting too high (which is only supposed to happen when your network is highly variable(?)) can stop the client from moving freely, I think it delays hit reg too? Idk.

    It's odd, I'm not sure I really understand it all that well, but I know it feels like weak rubber banding when above 40ish, and makes mantling a nightmare, worse and worse the higher it goes.

    That extr offset bug would make the game feel absolutely broken to anyone and could easily be confused with server performance tanking without the netgraph.

    In regard to the clip, there is a lot of issue with latency spiking when going into the menus/coming back to life.

    Watch for it, happens all the time to me, click options, boom latency spike, most of the latency spiking I see on my netgraph is a bug in bf1.

    So does the offset mean it's trying to compensate for your network? Thays what I'm assuming?

    I do get revived....a lot.....too much lol. Don't see those spikes at all, only at the end of a match.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    @VBALL_MVP

    Extrapolation offset relates to network variance. Instead of showing a guess of where a person was/is during moments of mistimed/missing packets, the offset allows the server will hold onto their packet data longer to accurately show their location, making player movement smooth. The offset getting too high (which is only supposed to happen when your network is highly variable(?)) can stop the client from moving freely, I think it delays hit reg too? Idk.

    It's odd, I'm not sure I really understand it all that well, but I know it feels like weak rubber banding when above 40ish, and makes mantling a nightmare, worse and worse the higher it goes.

    That extr offset bug would make the game feel absolutely broken to anyone and could easily be confused with server performance tanking without the netgraph.

    In regard to the clip, there is a lot of issue with latency spiking when going into the menus/coming back to life.

    Watch for it, happens all the time to me, click options, boom latency spike, most of the latency spiking I see on my netgraph is a bug in bf1.

    So does the offset mean it's trying to compensate for your network? Thays what I'm assuming?

    I do get revived....a lot.....too much lol. Don't see those spikes at all, only at the end of a match.

    Basically as I understand.

    Hm, I only see them once in a while with the revive might be because I look at the scoreboard fairly often after death, it's mostly the pause menu.
  • juhmu
    224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    The Extr Offset means how many ms players are ahead of you, but over 50ms makes you lag behind server. Offset is client side, not server or game side and thats why you see high offset when you are in deploy screen..
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2017
    juhmu wrote: »
    The Extr Offset means how many ms players are ahead of you, but over 50ms makes you lag behind server. Offset is client side, not server or game side and thats why you see high offset when you are in deploy screen..

    That was the server offset, present in bf4 and bfhl. And that only told you how far you were behind the server, not specifically other players.

    The extrapolation offset is something else, it was first seen at bf1 launch. Wasn't included in either alpha/beta. Its the value used for player movement extrapolation as I understand it.
    Post edited by KingTolapsium on
  • TheOver50Gamer
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited January 2017
    I have a new 43" uhd Samsung TV and although not as quick as a gaming monitor it has one of the lowest input latencies of current tv’s less than 18 ms and before you all say that’s the issue I would imagine most players with an xbox will be using a TV. My xbox is wired aswell.

    Xbox detailed network statistics latency 30.01mbps d/l 5.84mbps u/l 155ms latency 0 packet loss mtu 1452

    My average ping on speedtest.net is 9ms

    So having the network performance indicator running, here are the average stats

    US East Server
    Latency 87.7ms
    Extra Offset 39.0ms
    24 Kills 11 Deaths

    US West Server
    Latency 149.7ms
    Extra Offset 34.2ms
    19 Kills 7 Deaths

    Quickmatch Server
    Latency 49.2ms
    Extra Offset 35.2ms
    13 Kills 8 Deaths

    I think until its fixed US servers for UK players is the way to go the gameplay feels so much better when you can actually run around like a loon and win gunfights! Not having to sneak around and pre -aming on every corner with your lmg when your on a european server trying not to get one shoted by a pistol from the other side of the map! Although the kd ratios on the games I played are not hugely different, I was playing domination, the actual gameplay on the US servers was far more enjoyable, I was able to run around capturing flags all gun-ho!
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I have a new 43" uhd Samsung TV and although not as quick as a gaming monitor it has one of the lowest input latencies of current tv’s less than 18 ms and before you all say that’s the issue I would imagine most players with an xbox will be using a TV. My xbox is wired aswell.

    Xbox detailed network statistics latency 30.01mbps d/l 5.84mbps u/l 155ms latency 0 packet loss mtu 1452

    My average ping on speedtest.net is 9ms

    So having the network performance indicator running, here are the average stats

    US East Server
    Latency 87.7ms
    Extra Offset 39.0ms
    24 Kills 11 Deaths

    US West Server
    Latency 149.7ms
    Extra Offset 34.2ms
    19 Kills 7 Deaths

    Quickmatch Server
    Latency 49.2ms
    Extra Offset 35.2ms
    13 Kills 8 Deaths

    Playing on the US servers is for me a far better experience than quickmatch I find it takes far less bullets to down someone and although there is not a huge difference in my kills and deaths I am able to run around alot more on the US servers, quickmatch has to be more stealthy. So in my quickmatch game one player went way better than the whole lobby he went 25 Kills 4 Deaths, so I asked him where he was from and he was from Belgium. This is a reoccurring theme when I ask people where there from or they say "UK, but I got rubbish internet, mate" not realising how much it is actually helping them. For me it’s a no brainer for UK players, just play on US servers until it is fixed why not take advantage, I play for enjoyment and if my enjoyment of the game is better playing of those servers then I will, this goes for Battlefront, BF4 and Hardline. I would like region lock then servers with varying levels of ping lock enforced so that the players still on ADSL lines which will have 2/3 times the latency of a FIBRE or CABLE line get put together on the same servers. I don’t see why this can’t be done with technology know all servers are virtual and can be brought up in seconds and I’m sure it could be automated so when a server is not being used it is shutdown and if demand rises then bring a new server online. I really struggle to comprehend why this is such a complex task for EA/Dice to achieve we are at the end of the day their customers and they should be bending over backwards to make us happy especially as Battlefield 1 for me is the best FPS I have played online.

    I can put the game plays on you tube if need be but there not very interesting.

    Garbage Internet doesn't give you an advantage.
  • mmarkweII
    2919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.
  • stuwooster
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    The fact that the game simply runs too well for high pingers, encourages players to join explicitly out of region. Next on my list is to address that. I will make it much harder to hit something for high pingers, i wont artificially induce Rubberbanding or movement hurdles though. I think it should be harder to hit somebody, that is what the game ultimately boils down to. Seeing your strong feedback encourages me to explore options to make it much harder for high ping players. Once they feel like they suck with higher ping, the problem will solve itself. I still like to push the necessity to region lock servers. It is an ongoing discussion and I personally believe it is getting traction.

    @mischkag

    Holy crap! This sounds like progress in the right direction. Thanks for keeping us informed.
    As i said previously, i dont think anyone is looking for an advantage over high ping players, just not to be put at a disadvantage even if it is unintentional, personally when i had crappy internet i didnt play FPS online because i expected to have a a bad experience, now i do have a good connection and still having a sub-par experience.

    Looking forward to these changes being implemented.
  • stuwooster
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    Im going to share some funny captures of inconsistent moments whit you guys.

    Ps4
    Europe servers.
    30ms ping.
    No package loss.



    Cheers for reading and writing on the forum @mischkag

    My Netstats are almost identical to yours and i am also having the exact same issues as you posted. Have been ini the progress of getting some vids edited together.
    My favourite from mine is the A-10 center mass shot registers as a headshot for +8 damage.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?
  • em1LL77
    77 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    The fact that the game simply runs too well for high pingers, encourages players to join explicitly out of region. Next on my list is to address that. I will make it much harder to hit something for high pingers, i wont artificially induce Rubberbanding or movement hurdles though. I think it should be harder to hit somebody, that is what the game ultimately boils down to. Seeing your strong feedback encourages me to explore options to make it much harder for high ping players. Once they feel like they suck with higher ping, the problem will solve itself. I still like to push the necessity to region lock servers. It is an ongoing discussion and I personally believe it is getting traction.

    Holy wall of text batman. :wink:

    I can understand why movement hurdles and induced rubber banding are not things you want to implement (would probably feel terrible).

    Are you considering something similar to bf4? High ping have to lead shots more than normal? (That didn't feel too awful, it was learn-able compromise)
    mischkag wrote: »
    As far as the character model comment above goes, i dont quite understand that. There is no desync. How do you know what the high ping client is actually doing? Plz dont judge from the spectator view which is artificially put behind by 500ms.

    I'm not viewing from spectator (I understand the offset), the reason I assume there is an issue with desync, is I have been killed multiple times by players appearing around a corner (like multiple steps instantly) and dying from that player immediately, like one frame per bullet. (This could be an issue with the high frequency bubble (I think I brought that up already), it has a similar visual pop in to other issues I've seen with friendly players in my high frequency bubble).

    I know I can abuse the peakers advantage myself with latency over ~200ms, I have been assuming the irregularity I see from dying in these situations is the receiving end of the peaking advantage. I'll be the first to admit this is purely an assumption.

    It just doesn't feel right, maybe it's something completely different. I know I've recorded it happening, I'll make sure to highlight the problem I see in video form.

    I trust you will do what you can to fix the issues with players delivering damage ahead of their visible player model. Sounds like netcode things are moving in a very positive direction.

    regarding the issue with players delivering damage ahead of their visible player model,I can say I was experiencing this matter "live" to say so back in the days when they tested
    the server frame time in BF4CTE. I was playing CTE a lot that time to help with some feedback.What Dice did then ,was to set some servers with different lag comp.and see what people experience with them...so,on the servers that worked excellent for some players (including me) most of the players complained that they are having a bad experience(i guess those were the players with high ping,packet loss..etc. usually with crappy connections) i was having a 200Mbit down-6Mbit up fiber connection that time with no issues
    So they set the servers that way .since that day I'm experiencing the things you wrote in here...i play only in EU servers and tried the games on multiple ISP's in my country(Romania) with speeds up to 1Gbit/sec down and 500Mbit/sec up ,FTTH connection and the experience is the same mostly pings around 25-50 ms,no packet loss or other issues...traced the connections to the servers an there were no pocket loss thru the hops...In many cases I can't even react to the player is shooting at me when he comes from around a corner because he seems that he had already shot at me before I can see his model also since then when I'm in a close range gun fight the game behaves like the server is putting my actions away and i have to wait for the other player to finish me, to say it in a simple way and that has only mostly to do with the game lag compensation and with BF1 Dice increased that from 250 or something ms to above 300ms... I hope Dice will take this in consideration in the upcoming patches because there are lots of players who really love this francise and the experience should be enjoyable and the same for all players.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?

    Most people don't know how to set a new location in speed test they just run it amd it will go to the nearest server. But you already know, just won't post it, that all your speed test in different areas have different speeds some will be much slower than others and only be maybe 10 miles away. That's because of the routes, their traffic, and their over all equipment. And that's where you will get issues and inconsistentcies.

    The Web is the wild wild west. Just cause you pay for 100Mbps fiber channel doesn't mean that's you gave good stable internet. Jitter, your ISP, and other ISPs crappy pipe that you are routed through can effect your gameplay.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?

    Most people don't know how to set a new location in speed test they just run it amd it will go to the nearest server. But you already know, just won't post it, that all your speed test in different areas have different speeds some will be much slower than others and only be maybe 10 miles away. That's because of the routes, their traffic, and their over all equipment. And that's where you will get issues and inconsistentcies.

    The Web is the wild wild west. Just cause you pay for 100Mbps fiber channel doesn't mean that's you gave good stable internet. Jitter, your ISP, and other ISPs crappy pipe that you are routed through can effect your gameplay.

    Ofcorse they know how to change server location.. People are not completely stupid.

    This is over WiFi...

  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2017
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?

    Most people don't know how to set a new location in speed test they just run it amd it will go to the nearest server. But you already know, just won't post it, that all your speed test in different areas have different speeds some will be much slower than others and only be maybe 10 miles away. That's because of the routes, their traffic, and their over all equipment. And that's where you will get issues and inconsistentcies.

    The Web is the wild wild west. Just cause you pay for 100Mbps fiber channel doesn't mean that's you gave good stable internet. Jitter, your ISP, and other ISPs crappy pipe that you are routed through can effect your gameplay.

    Ofcorse they know how to change server location.. People are not completely stupid.

    This is over WiFi...


    Those servers are not dice bf1 servers. There could be issues with the connection to dice servers that are not shown by connecting to ping test servers.

    Many assume a low ping in a ping test should automatically earn them an equally low ping on game servers.

    Ping testing does not share the same packet length, resulting in potentially smoother transmission through bad routes.

    A ping test might accurately depict your connection state to bf1 servers, but on the flip side, it might not.
    Post edited by KingTolapsium on
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?

    Most people don't know how to set a new location in speed test they just run it amd it will go to the nearest server. But you already know, just won't post it, that all your speed test in different areas have different speeds some will be much slower than others and only be maybe 10 miles away. That's because of the routes, their traffic, and their over all equipment. And that's where you will get issues and inconsistentcies.

    The Web is the wild wild west. Just cause you pay for 100Mbps fiber channel doesn't mean that's you gave good stable internet. Jitter, your ISP, and other ISPs crappy pipe that you are routed through can effect your gameplay.

    Ofcorse they know how to change server location.. People are not completely stupid.

    This is over WiFi...


    Those servers are not dice bf1 servers. There could be issues with the connection to dice servers that are not shown by connecting to ping test servers.

    Many assume a low ping in a ping test should automatically earn them an equally ping on game servers.

    Ping testing does not share the same packet length, resulting in potentially smoother transmission through bad routes.

    A ping test might accurately depict your connection state to bf1 servers, but on the flip side, it might not.

    Okey. I can only speak for my self. And I see about the same numbers when I do the tests in bf1.
  • jmottone
    43 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Well @mischkag said they are looking into all of these concerns. I feel like they will eventually get it all sorted out. Maybe we will see some improvements on the upcoming update!
  • archronin76
    23 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    Personally, I fell like there should be matchmaking options in place so that when a player uses quick match they can choose to say hey, don't put me in a server with someone who has a high ping or low throughput and they get thrown into a server that has flags for such with active countermeasures to block players who violate those settings at anytime during the game, sort of like the low-ping servers of CoD 4 and [email protected] after they could no longer disable the sv_antilag variable due to patching. Let's be honest here, high ping isn't the only thing that can cause issues, in fact, for me the biggest issues arise from players who clearly have synching issues due to unstable traffic flow, whether actual or artificial-this is a phenomenon I see in many multiplayer games. Situations where players are teleporting, flickering and absorbing large amounts of damage while dealing burst damage and yet their overall ping is less than 150ms, I've often seen players teleport in games reporting as little as 30ms jitter and sub 100ms ping at the highest points and they are clearly benefitting from this (titanfall 1 and Black Ops 2 on PC).

    That way, all of the players who legitimately have crappy isps, which they shouldn't be playing competitively on in my opinion-another debate for another time, can then play on their pick of regions, just noting that they will be on an even footing with everyone else in that server. Meanwhile, legit players who pay for decent internet can have a more equitable and trustworthy experience.

    I say this because region locks aren't going to fix a lot of the issues that I see in multiplayer gaming in general with regard to connectivity and traffic flow. All a region block does is block a player based off of either account criteria, which can easily be bypassed or by Wan IPs, which again can be bypassed by proxies. Ultimately, even if I am in a situation where I am only playing against other people in North America, it still means high ping players and/or unstable traffic flow. I know this because players from Mexico often will read four stable green bars in CoD (I live in Texas) and they still teleport, appear out of thin air and do burst damage. I bet if I got a numeric readout there would be a noticeable ping jitter but their overall ping would still be less than 100ms and they would still give me fits as they do in BF1. No-region locks won't fix that issue at all.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    mmarkweII wrote: »
    Speed test doesn't matter either since you aren't testing to a BF server. :neutral:

    Exactly, you're testing your speed to the nearest server to you. Not the BF server nor the same path you would take to the server. Not to mention not the same size of data, or accounting for ISPs putting speed test traffic as a priority to "boost" their values.

    I dont know what the heck you have for Internet providers in USA.
    But in the rest of the world speed test. Tptest. Bredbandskollen. Etc.. Seems to give about the same stats as the netgraph. That is if you choose to test to a server in a location of the bf1 servers.

    Dutch. Okey. Test every available place for speedtest in Dutch.

    Irland. Do the same. Test both sides of the country and the midle.

    South American. Testing different locations from Sweden to random places in South America... Guess what? It gives a value about the same as the netgraph in bf1!

    I don't know why you and mrmarckwell is always so condescending against other forum wisitors?
    Surely people do understand that they have to test there ping to the location where the servers are at!?

    Maybe you could explain to @mischkag why and how the netcode sucks.. So he can fix it?

    Most people don't know how to set a new location in speed test they just run it amd it will go to the nearest server. But you already know, just won't post it, that all your speed test in different areas have different speeds some will be much slower than others and only be maybe 10 miles away. That's because of the routes, their traffic, and their over all equipment. And that's where you will get issues and inconsistentcies.

    The Web is the wild wild west. Just cause you pay for 100Mbps fiber channel doesn't mean that's you gave good stable internet. Jitter, your ISP, and other ISPs crappy pipe that you are routed through can effect your gameplay.

    Ofcorse they know how to change server location.. People are not completely stupid.

    This is over WiFi...


    Those servers are not dice bf1 servers. There could be issues with the connection to dice servers that are not shown by connecting to ping test servers.

    Many assume a low ping in a ping test should automatically earn them an equally ping on game servers.

    Ping testing does not share the same packet length, resulting in potentially smoother transmission through bad routes.

    A ping test might accurately depict your connection state to bf1 servers, but on the flip side, it might not.

    Okey. I can only speak for my self. And I see about the same numbers when I do the tests in bf1.

    That's fine, I don't doubt you at all, but it's best to be clear about these things, as issues can arise from almost everywhere in a network.
Sign In or Register to comment.