Hit Detection

Comments

  • jmottone
    43 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    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




    It seems odd that certain players should suffer because of something that you say cannot be controlled., but yet you have the code, and in the code lies the answer to this problem, seeing how you have the means of determining each players ping rate, and each players current weapon, the distance between the two players, and the code to determine a direct hit, headshot, etc...There is a solution to this, and we hope the devs are able to find the bottleneck and correct the code accordingly. I mean look, I am on 75Mb/s Fiber Wired and still have severe issues with Hit Detection, and I am still not totally convinced that the issues that I AM SEEING is in any way related to ping, as I have said before. It seems more like the Designated Hit Zones of the enemy are not registering as hits, even though you clearly shoot them in the chest or the head, or anywhere. They just simply do not register as a hit. But that is only part of the problem. The other lies in the damage to distance ratio. A clear chest shot performed at close range with a sniper rifle that kills with one shot from far away should also kill with one shot at close range. Or a shotgun blast that takes one shot to kill an enemy at a medium range, should also kill a person at close range with one shot. This has NOTHING to do with ping. It has to do with the damage of the equipped weapon needing to be increased as distance decreases. It is logic. A sniper rifle that kills with one shot at a long distance should still kill an enemy at a close range with one shot. This is not the case in this game and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PING....You cant have a static damage on a weapon, when logic dictates that as the distance between two opponents decrease, damage should increase. Not only that, but the Optimal Kill Zone or Designated Critical Hit Zone, should be widened as a player gets closer. You can attack this from two angles, with the damage to distance ratio, and with the expansion of the Critical Hit Zone as distance decreases.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V 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 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.

    Same thing I said. Guess you're more creditible to lizzard
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP 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 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.

    Same thing I said. Guess you're more creditible to lizzard

    Lol, guess so. :wink:
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP 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 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.

    Same thing I said. Guess you're more creditible to lizzard

    And as I replied. I can only speak for my self, and in my case the numbers are about the same!
    Maybe we have good and fair Internet companies in Sweden?

    If im testing to a server in Ireland. It seems like I have about 30 ms.
    In a bf1 servers in Ireland, it seems like I have 25-30ms.
    Although it may be as high as 60ms. (servers that have a high SrvTick value) And in those cases its fixed by leaving, and joining a different server on the same location.

    Did they magically move the servers during the time I joined a new one?
    Is my ISP responsible for bad routing, if 5 players see that there ping is nearly double on a server?

    Your credibility is completely obliterated in my opinion. Due to you constantly trying to find people to argue with, in an never ending loop. No one can make you stop, not even if they say you are right!

    But yes you are right. You dont have any credibility!
  • TheOver50Gamer
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Its been a good thread and some good comments but until they come up with any sort of fair fix then for this game and all other EA/Dice games where you can choose a region I will be on the US servers and shock horror im gonna stream it aswell just to add some upload traffic in there for good measure. Happy Hunting and be careful out there you may never see who shoot you! (Puts on flameproof suit and leaves the building)
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP 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 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.

    Same thing I said. Guess you're more creditible to lizzard

    And as I replied. I can only speak for my self, and in my case the numbers are about the same!
    Maybe we have good and fair Internet companies in Sweden?

    If im testing to a server in Ireland. It seems like I have about 30 ms.
    In a bf1 servers in Ireland, it seems like I have 25-30ms.
    Although it may be as high as 60ms. (servers that have a high SrvTick value) And in those cases its fixed by leaving, and joining a different server on the same location.

    Did they magically move the servers during the time I joined a new one?
    Is my ISP responsible for bad routing, if 5 players see that there ping is nearly double on a server?

    Your credibility is completely obliterated in my opinion. Due to you constantly trying to find people to argue with, in an never ending loop. No one can make you stop, not even if they say you are right!

    But yes you are right. You dont have any credibility!

    Wow you are very sensitive. Lost credibility because I state my side? Never ending loop? Have you seen your posts?

    No I don't think the servers have moved l, traced both BF4 and BF1 packets and they go to the same area.

    Yes a speed test, even if you are connecting to one in Ireland is misleading. 1. ISPs like to put priority on speed tests to inflate their stats. 2. Packets are not large. 3. Many don't track quality issues like packet loss, jitter, etc. 4. It's not the same path you take to BF1 servers.

    Majority of the tme your packets leave your OS, once that happens who knows the quality of the route. Case in point, I can do two tests in Chicago; one through my ISP, another than goes through a "value" service. My bandwidth can drop by 50% by doing thay since the other ISP can't handle the traffic. Now ISPs are always updating their routing tables to find the best route but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

    So yes...speed tests are not the best barometer of "Good Internet". Call me what you want...but the facts won't change.
  • jdbelcher1998
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Question for those of you out there who know much more about this stuff than I do: Why might it be that I never ever ever get the packet loss icon in BF1 (and never show even a 0.1% packet loss in the netgraph—that I can recall), AND never get packet loss on my network, even via wifi, on say my desktop, but get the packet loss symbol all the time in BF4?

    BF1 was completely unplayable for me yesterday and I'm rather certain it was exactly the same Extr Offset issues @KingTolapsium mentioned earlier in the thread (that number was up at 170 at one point yesterday and my character was basically stuck in mud and the right stick on my controller—yes, I'm a peasant, sorry—felt like molasses as well). So then I went and played BF4, which was a much, much better experience, but packet loss symbol. Always trying to improve anything I can that's an issue on my end so open to thoughts. Thanks.
  • LiquidCheese99
    51 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    It's lag. They try to hide it from you with good prediction code, but it's still there.

    Low ping players should have an advantage^^^. High ping players should stay in their own region. Anyone playing in a game with a ping of more than about 100-120 is going to ruin the game for all the local players. BF3 and BF4 were terrible because the lag compensation favored high ping players. My friend use to go play on European servers because, as long as he kept moving, he was almost unkillable. He'd go 25-1-ish every match. Don't know about BF1 but I still see a lot of "lag" issues.
  • jdbelcher1998
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why, though, would the BF4 server—and this is a pretty much ubiquitous problem for all BF4 servers I've played (in US East)—think that the client (me) is losing data along the route when I have no packet loss anywhere else on my network, including on servers in basically the same location while playing BF1? I realize how to spot lag and when the prediction/compensation/extrapolation by the server to correct for it is affecting my gameplay, but the netgraph icons have always been pretty reliable for me but something has always seemed off with BF4 because of how often I get the packet loss symbol.
  • stuwooster
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    @jmottone
    jmottone wrote: »

    It seems odd that certain players should suffer because of something that you say cannot be controlled., but yet you have the code, and in the code lies the answer to this problem, seeing how you have the means of determining each players ping rate, and each players current weapon, the distance between the two players, and the code to determine a direct hit, headshot, etc...There is a solution to this, and we hope the devs are able to find the bottleneck and correct the code accordingly. I mean look, I am on 75Mb/s Fiber Wired and still have severe issues with Hit Detection, and I am still not totally convinced that the issues that I AM SEEING is in any way related to ping, as I have said before. It seems more like the Designated Hit Zones of the enemy are not registering as hits, even though you clearly shoot them in the chest or the head, or anywhere. They just simply do not register as a hit. But that is only part of the problem. The other lies in the damage to distance ratio. A clear chest shot performed at close range with a sniper rifle that kills with one shot from far away should also kill with one shot at close range. Or a shotgun blast that takes one shot to kill an enemy at a medium range, should also kill a person at close range with one shot. This has NOTHING to do with ping. It has to do with the damage of the equipped weapon needing to be increased as distance decreases. It is logic. A sniper rifle that kills with one shot at a long distance should still kill an enemy at a close range with one shot. This is not the case in this game and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PING....You cant have a static damage on a weapon, when logic dictates that as the distance between two opponents decrease, damage should increase. Not only that, but the Optimal Kill Zone or Designated Critical Hit Zone, should be widened as a player gets closer. You can attack this from two angles, with the damage to distance ratio, and with the expansion of the Critical Hit Zone as distance decreases.


    As i understand it, your client reports hits you have delivered and positions to the server and at the same time the client of the person you are shooting at reports hits received and positions to the server then some trickery is applied at the server end to even everything out in time and the results are sent back to the respective clients,
    I think hits go missing because the client receiving hits is reporting a different position ( a position they were in previously because they are delayed by 1/2 a second) and no hits received whilst your client is reporting the position you perceive and your hits get lost. This would explain why sometimes with very laggy players you can see them performing the "hit animation" but not actually get any hit markers.
  • theONEFORCE
    2843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'm pretty much in the middle of the country and on US West I have mostly perfect play experiences and on US East its terrible almost every time I play. It doesn't make sense. Things like this happen all the time in East Servers...



    Although now that I think about it, the only time I have ever have trouble on West Servers is during the day so maybe I need to use East during the day and West at night to avoid whatever is destroying the servers at those times.
  • RichardPye843
    206 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I'm pretty much in the middle of the country and on US West I have mostly perfect play experiences and on US East its terrible almost every time I play. It doesn't make sense. Things like this happen all the time in East Servers...



    Although now that I think about it, the only time I have ever have trouble on West Servers is during the day so maybe I need to use East during the day and West at night to avoid whatever is destroying the servers at those times.

    The title is misleading. Though it says US east it also incorporates some of Western Europe too to my understanding. I may be wrong but I believe I read that somewhere.
  • Eclipse_Ilx
    684 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @mischkag

    Here are some clips of the hit detection being off if it helps, thanks for paying attention to the community, that really makes alot more people buy the game lol, not many companies listen to their customers

    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/assasain445522/video/25501858

    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/assasain445522/video/25216067

    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/assasain445522/video/25216189
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    @VBALL_MVP

    Lets just ignore each other. I really don't see the enjoyment in helping you get this thread locked, like all the other thread's...


    For every one else.
    Here is video of gameplay whit 700-900ms.
    No rejected hits.
    Not being killed in one frame.

    The guy that put this together. Have a controlled environment, to manipulate the ping etc. So its not just a super poor connection.

    Im posting one of his videos. And then he can post the rest of them when he likes.



    How is this possible, if the server is supposed to reject hits from highpingers?
    @mischkag
  • diagoro
    1559 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Today was one of the worst days I have EVER had with this terrible hit detection. I shot a guy in the back with the shot gun shell with a tank and only did 68 damage and I was dead on center 3 meters away. It is so bad the splash damage does ZERO damage from regular tank shells. The worst is spawning in with a tank and the repair function missing. This game NEEDS to get fixed! I am literally sick of it. Somedays are better than others. You know when you are about to have a bad game when the spotting function does not work at all.

    I'very had the experience most the weekend and today. Just got off the horse as cavalry.....and had no rifle, grenades or sword, only a pistol. Than spawned into a heavy and only one skin (normally four or five).
  • SupremeEpidemic
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 2017
    mischkag wrote: »
    like some other dude some day suggested: Now go back to work. Thats what i will do.

    Just like I suggested before, get back to work on these issues...what in the world are you doing responding to us? Time is wasting ;);)

    Edit-You have plenty of suggestions and evidence to compile a solution to these issues we face with the hit detection/network performance.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    I thank you guys for posting all these productive suggestions and even more so videos.
    It sucks that i am very confident to have fixed/improved most of the issues already. Unfortunately due to the complex nature of the changes it wont make it into the upcoming patch. I know this sucks, but even if u may think it cannot get worse, i need to make sure none of it breaks anything as it operates on the heart of the bullet detection and netcode.
    So as most of you know correctly, the extrapolation offset is pretty much some sort of network compensation for your connection. U may call it additional lag to ensure smooth gameplay. However, there are bugs and as u could clearly see in the videos, if it turns red things will be really behind and all these soldiers from nowhere, sudden death, poor hit detection issues start to happen. I do believe i have fixed it. I will let u know once we have a CTE up where it should be live for feedback.
    Yes it would be nice to have the NetGraph less intrusive on the screen, but i need to be able to read it when posted on youtube, otherwise it is incomplete information and prevents me from guessing what the root cause is. Maybe i could provide some minimal option there.
    It may not sound obvious, but one of the root causes of the netcode trouble u see is actually not the netcode and rather the framerate stalls the game unfortunately can have. I know u may not care, but this correlation should be much improved right now and these extraordinary extrapolation spikes shouldnt happen any longer. But again, i am sorry this is not live for some time.
    The bandwidth we need in the game is rather small. It can theoretically peak to about 500kbit but for the most part you should see between 100..200kbit. Thats not a lot. So latency and ping variation is all that matters. And this brings us back to the issue with the regions. Dont u think i would not also love to just support <100ms ping? I suggested internally to provide servers with ping/region locks. It is acknowledged but the entire matchmaking / server infrastructure is not a simple system you can just add a ping cap to. I hope we will be able to make strides in that area to once and for all provide what you ask for.
    Again, it is not in any way that EA tries to save money. Quite the opposite. But it needs to be supported on the operational side, server centers, UI, client, Matchmaking, server...
    Still, i do believe that if i can make the game not appealing for higher pings, that at least ppl will stop deliberately joining out of region and ease the problem.
    The server does reject when you have ping above 1s. I know this is way too much. However, as long as you are able to join the game with a ridiculous ping, i need to support this.
    As much as i would love to put some low caps on all of this, my first concern is to fix all the issues and emphasize internally that we need these ping caps. I will also make sure the game becomes less appealing to high pingers. I am sorry if i have missed some notes here in the forum, there was so much input from you guys but like some other dude some day suggested: Now go back to work. Thats what i will do.

    Thank you for the detailed feedback. It's good to see you guys are on top of this. Most of us enjoy the game and would like it to keep being a great experience.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    I thank you guys for posting all these productive suggestions and even more so videos.
    It sucks that i am very confident to have fixed/improved most of the issues already. Unfortunately due to the complex nature of the changes it wont make it into the upcoming patch. I know this sucks, but even if u may think it cannot get worse, i need to make sure none of it breaks anything as it operates on the heart of the bullet detection and netcode.
    So as most of you know correctly, the extrapolation offset is pretty much some sort of network compensation for your connection. U may call it additional lag to ensure smooth gameplay. However, there are bugs and as u could clearly see in the videos, if it turns red things will be really behind and all these soldiers from nowhere, sudden death, poor hit detection issues start to happen. I do believe i have fixed it. I will let u know once we have a CTE up where it should be live for feedback.
    Yes it would be nice to have the NetGraph less intrusive on the screen, but i need to be able to read it when posted on youtube, otherwise it is incomplete information and prevents me from guessing what the root cause is. Maybe i could provide some minimal option there.
    It may not sound obvious, but one of the root causes of the netcode trouble u see is actually not the netcode and rather the framerate stalls the game unfortunately can have. I know u may not care, but this correlation should be much improved right now and these extraordinary extrapolation spikes shouldnt happen any longer. But again, i am sorry this is not live for some time.
    The bandwidth we need in the game is rather small. It can theoretically peak to about 500kbit but for the most part you should see between 100..200kbit. Thats not a lot. So latency and ping variation is all that matters. And this brings us back to the issue with the regions. Dont u think i would not also love to just support <100ms ping? I suggested internally to provide servers with ping/region locks. It is acknowledged but the entire matchmaking / server infrastructure is not a simple system you can just add a ping cap to. I hope we will be able to make strides in that area to once and for all provide what you ask for.
    Again, it is not in any way that EA tries to save money. Quite the opposite. But it needs to be supported on the operational side, server centers, UI, client, Matchmaking, server...
    Still, i do believe that if i can make the game not appealing for higher pings, that at least ppl will stop deliberately joining out of region and ease the problem.
    The server does reject when you have ping above 1s. I know this is way too much. However, as long as you are able to join the game with a ridiculous ping, i need to support this.
    As much as i would love to put some low caps on all of this, my first concern is to fix all the issues and emphasize internally that we need these ping caps. I will also make sure the game becomes less appealing to high pingers. I am sorry if i have missed some notes here in the forum, there was so much input from you guys but like some other dude some day suggested: Now go back to work. Thats what i will do.

    Super good post.
    Some really good info and thoughts.
    Some that's not so good.. That later part is not by your decision as It seems. Hope they will listen to you in the end.

  • diagoro
    1559 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    I thank you guys for posting all these productive suggestions and even more so videos.
    It sucks that i am very confident to have fixed/improved most of the issues already. Unfortunately due to the complex nature of the changes it wont make it into the upcoming patch. I know this sucks, but even if u may think it cannot get worse, i need to make sure none of it breaks anything as it operates on the heart of the bullet detection and netcode.
    So as most of you know correctly, the extrapolation offset is pretty much some sort of network compensation for your connection. U may call it additional lag to ensure smooth gameplay. However, there are bugs and as u could clearly see in the videos, if it turns red things will be really behind and all these soldiers from nowhere, sudden death, poor hit detection issues start to happen. I do believe i have fixed it. I will let u know once we have a CTE up where it should be live for feedback.
    Yes it would be nice to have the NetGraph less intrusive on the screen, but i need to be able to read it when posted on youtube, otherwise it is incomplete information and prevents me from guessing what the root cause is. Maybe i could provide some minimal option there.
    It may not sound obvious, but one of the root causes of the netcode trouble u see is actually not the netcode and rather the framerate stalls the game unfortunately can have. I know u may not care, but this correlation should be much improved right now and these extraordinary extrapolation spikes shouldnt happen any longer. But again, i am sorry this is not live for some time.
    The bandwidth we need in the game is rather small. It can theoretically peak to about 500kbit but for the most part you should see between 100..200kbit. Thats not a lot. So latency and ping variation is all that matters. And this brings us back to the issue with the regions. Dont u think i would not also love to just support <100ms ping? I suggested internally to provide servers with ping/region locks. It is acknowledged but the entire matchmaking / server infrastructure is not a simple system you can just add a ping cap to. I hope we will be able to make strides in that area to once and for all provide what you ask for.
    Again, it is not in any way that EA tries to save money. Quite the opposite. But it needs to be supported on the operational side, server centers, UI, client, Matchmaking, server...
    Still, i do believe that if i can make the game not appealing for higher pings, that at least ppl will stop deliberately joining out of region and ease the problem.
    The server does reject when you have ping above 1s. I know this is way too much. However, as long as you are able to join the game with a ridiculous ping, i need to support this.
    As much as i would love to put some low caps on all of this, my first concern is to fix all the issues and emphasize internally that we need these ping caps. I will also make sure the game becomes less appealing to high pingers. I am sorry if i have missed some notes here in the forum, there was so much input from you guys but like some other dude some day suggested: Now go back to work. Thats what i will do.

    mischkag, again, appreciate the direct interaction and feedback.

    Was hoping to ask an off topic question. Is there any thought to improbing the horrid menu lag? I'm on xbox, and it's insane how slow the menu is, in most aspects. From general in game choices, to server browser. It technically works for the most part, just agonizingly slow most of the time, so it might be low on the priority list. I just assume the this slowness is related to the lag you see when spawning on teammates and a few other places.
Sign In or Register to comment.