Hit Detection

Comments

  • stuwooster
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited February 2017
    mischkag wrote: »
    Btw the way, CTE will be featured on both consoles this time in the near future. Very soon the first expansion maps will be featured on PC CTE which will include the bulk load of netcode and hit detection improvements I have worked on.

    Great news!

    Can we take it from that there will be no changes in the netcode until March?
  • mischkag
    214 postsMember, Developer DICE
    Minor parts to be released in the upcoming patch. The huge chunk then will be released with the first expansion pack and the last netcode 'installment' will come with the spring patch. After that we will see where we are and keep pushing in the meantime on the favorite topic of this thread: ping caps :)
  • juhmu
    224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member

    mischkag wrote: »
    Btw the way, CTE will be featured on both consoles this time in the near future. Very soon the first expansion maps will be featured on PC CTE which will include the bulk load of netcode and hit detection improvements I have worked on.
    So Dice is going to run 2 different versions for both consoles? One for windows (Pc and Xbox ) and one for PS4 because PS4 operating system is FreeBSD aka " Linux ".. Or is there a reason why Dice demands windows 10 for Pc and Xbox :)
  • SupremeEpidemic
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Minor parts to be released in the upcoming patch. The huge chunk then will be released with the first expansion pack and the last netcode 'installment' will come with the spring patch. After that we will see where we are and keep pushing in the meantime on the favorite topic of this thread: ping caps :)

    Ping caps yay ;)
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    juhmu wrote: »
    mischkag wrote: »
    Btw the way, CTE will be featured on both consoles this time in the near future. Very soon the first expansion maps will be featured on PC CTE which will include the bulk load of netcode and hit detection improvements I have worked on.
    So Dice is going to run 2 different versions for both consoles? One for windows (Pc and Xbox ) and one for PS4 because PS4 operating system is FreeBSD aka " Linux ".. Or is there a reason why Dice demands windows 10 for Pc and Xbox :)

    No.....I know you're trying to be funny....but you're not
  • mmarkweII
    2919 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Minor parts to be released in the upcoming patch. The huge chunk then will be released with the first expansion pack and the last netcode 'installment' will come with the spring patch. After that we will see where we are and keep pushing in the meantime on the favorite topic of this thread: ping caps :)

    Interesting.....

    Again, thank you for the responses.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The CTE isn't a good way to test these changes.
    Its limted to premium players from experience of other fps games the premium players or players who purchase season passes are the more serious gamers who invest more time and money not only into the game but into there connections and set-ups typically there the lower latency players with properly optimised connections who aren't the issue.
    Then theres the players who gimp there connections on purpose by streaming netflix or downloading torrents while playing to get the advantage this player base is going to have no interest in playing a CTE which is likely to remove or reduce there advantage.
    So the CTE is going to be mostly low latency players anyway its not going to be what the game is like on the public servers at all and a bad way to test the changes, this is why the game has such horrific issues with latency to begin with because the netcode wasn't tested in the real world before releasing the game.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2017
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    The CTE isn't a good way to test these changes.
    Its limted to premium players from experience of other fps games the premium players or players who purchase season passes are the more serious gamers who invest more time and money not only into the game but into there connections and set-ups typically there the lower latency players with properly optimised connections who aren't the issue.
    Then theres the players who gimp there connections on purpose by streaming netflix or downloading torrents while playing to get the advantage this player base is going to have no interest in playing a CTE which is likely to remove or reduce there advantage.
    So the CTE is going to be mostly low latency players anyway its not going to be what the game is like on the public servers at all and a bad way to test the changes, this is why the game has such horrific issues with latency to begin with because the netcode wasn't tested in the real world before releasing the game.

    You aren't entirely wrong, I know how to make my connection quality deteriorate, and I'll be expecting a poor experience to coincide with those negative changes on my end. That being said, would be excellent if DICE ran some "test servers" in the live game like in bf4 with the 60hz servers, or like the bf1 alpha where the servers were all EU...... @mischkag ,from what I understand its not quite simple to get all the server data off of the average live server. As this is a somewhat special and especially pervasive issue, I think that additional testing after its out the door would probably be a good idea.

    Even if we can't have open public testing during the CTE testing, would be great to have some "test servers" to be open in the live game when the netcode changes arrive, either specified as test, or blended in to the standard list.

    From the past three titles, it's very clear that the internal DICE testing does not accurately represent the live console network environment. (Even live console alpha testing falls very short, alpha was a dream compared to the laggy live game).
  • KirkSi
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    I dont think we can simply lock the ping for official servers. There are friend invites and we do not cover all regions. We are looking into improving Matchmaking and getting it better, but is is not an easy process. In an ideal world, i'd love to just have players <50ping. Unfortunately that is not the reality.
    The erradic movement for high pingers is something i hope i can address.
    I understand the need for official servers not to be ping limited. Everyone that has bought the game should be able to play and some regions may not have their own servers so have to play with a high ping on other regions servers. Also, as you stated sometimes friends from different regions may want to play together. What I, and I know a lot of other users would like, is for rented servers to have the option of a ping limiter. We're paying to rent the servers so should have a bit more say in how they run. There could be some pre-set values in there and possibly nothing crazy low, maybe 100ms. As you said, ideally it would be less than 50ms, but in setting it at 100ms it should allow a good number of people to qualify for the server, but will restrict any crazy high pings that could really affect server performance.

    Those players that have a crazy high ping will have official servers to play on, and even if the option is available not everyone that rents a server will implement it. It would be nice for those of us that want to rent and run our own server though to have the option of keeping matches balanced to within at least 100ms ping.

    While I'm on server rental it would also be nice if we could run custom map rotations without dropping off the 'official' server list. On BF4 running a custom map rotation meant that you didn't get any quick join players, you only appeared on the server browser and it meant it was a pain to get servers up and running from empty. It led to a frustrating experience where a server you were paying for lay empty for long periods and when you and three or four mates tried to get it going it either took ages to get it full or it never did fill up so you had to go and join someone else's server even though you were paying for one yourself. This led to us not renewing the server.
  • FlopTrain
    506 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    People with poor connections shouldn't even be in servers. Bottom line.

    When did developing games for bad connections become the norm at Dice? Servers should auto boot any connection that is stressing or unstable.

    Nothing does this and that is why Battlefield games play like garbage for so many people, alot of the time.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    FlopTrain wrote: »
    People with poor connections shouldn't even be in servers. Bottom line.

    When did developing games for bad connections become the norm at Dice? Servers should auto boot any connection that is stressing or unstable.

    Nothing does this and that is why Battlefield games play like garbage for so many people, alot of the time.

    Bad connections or not.

    Money is green, that much is obvious.
  • jdbelcher1998
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    As for diagnosing personal client network issues in the middle of this process that mischkag is helping us with on server-side, I was wondering if any of you have or could point me to reliable information on the discussion about UPnP, port forwarding, and DMZ for network traffic on consoles. I have seen a number of people who say they use their consoles in DMZ without problem while many others will tell you don't ever do that because of (seemingly obvious, even if only potential) security risks. Still others tell you the best method is to port forward the correct ports. Yet every guide for port forwarding—including EA, Playstation, XBox, and portforward.com—will tell you to forward ports 80 and 443 (HTTP ports) on TCP, while others are quick to say DON"T EVER DO THAT. Finally, some will say UPnP can handle everything just fine if you have a decent router, so don't even bother with port forwarding or DMZ, while others will say it has "security risks" as well. Plus some will tell you that you have to have UPnP enabled at the same time that you forward ports while still others say only enable one of the three at a time. A whole other can of worms on top of this is QoS (I have "adaptive QoS" turned on for my router to prioritize bandwidth for gaming).

    Now. I understand the difference between all of these things. But I do not have significant background in networking to know when someone is saying something with any amount of reliability on these various topics to weed out the BS (no matter how sincere) from the truth.

    I am using an ASUS RT-68P router wired to LAN with TWC 100Mb dl 10Mb ul and still have occasional ping spikes in multiplayer games. I have been using port forwarding for about a year now and have straightened out some packet loss issues with my ISP (there was a cable routing issue at the box in my neighborhood), but still have occasional ping spikes. There are so many variables at work here I realize I cannot reduce any potential issues, such as ping spikes, to whether I have my PS4 in DMZ or use port forwarding. I get that. I just want some reliable info to continue to be as informed as possible on these topics so that when I show my netgraph results to mischkag or whomever in the CTE I am at least fairly confident I've done what I can on my end to reduce client-side issues and am reasonably confident I'm experiencing server-side issues instead. Any help is much appreciated. I'm a classical guitarist; I don't generally deal with the intricacies of networking!
  • Michael_Seaman
    461 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    As for diagnosing personal client network issues in the middle of this process that mischkag is helping us with on server-side, I was wondering if any of you have or could point me to reliable information on the discussion about UPnP, port forwarding, and DMZ for network traffic on consoles. I have seen a number of people who say they use their consoles in DMZ without problem while many others will tell you don't ever do that because of (seemingly obvious, even if only potential) security risks. Still others tell you the best method is to port forward the correct ports. Yet every guide for port forwarding—including EA, Playstation, XBox, and portforward.com—will tell you to forward ports 80 and 443 (HTTP ports) on TCP, while others are quick to say DON"T EVER DO THAT. Finally, some will say UPnP can handle everything just fine if you have a decent router, so don't even bother with port forwarding or DMZ, while others will say it has "security risks" as well. Plus some will tell you that you have to have UPnP enabled at the same time that you forward ports while still others say only enable one of the three at a time. A whole other can of worms on top of this is QoS (I have "adaptive QoS" turned on for my router to prioritize bandwidth for gaming).

    Now. I understand the difference between all of these things. But I do not have significant background in networking to know when someone is saying something with any amount of reliability on these various topics to weed out the BS (no matter how sincere) from the truth.

    I am using an ASUS RT-68P router wired to LAN with TWC 100Mb dl 10Mb ul and still have occasional ping spikes in multiplayer games. I have been using port forwarding for about a year now and have straightened out some packet loss issues with my ISP (there was a cable routing issue at the box in my neighborhood), but still have occasional ping spikes. There are so many variables at work here I realize I cannot reduce any potential issues, such as ping spikes, to whether I have my PS4 in DMZ or use port forwarding. I get that. I just want some reliable info to continue to be as informed as possible on these topics so that when I show my netgraph results to mischkag or whomever in the CTE I am at least fairly confident I've done what I can on my end to reduce client-side issues and am reasonably confident I'm experiencing server-side issues instead. Any help is much appreciated. I'm a classical guitarist; I don't generally deal with the intricacies of networking!

    You may have wanted to start your own thread with this post since it doesn't really concern hit detection, but i'll share my response anyway. I have used all three options with exactly the same success and would venture to say you will get your NAT open no matter what you choose. With that being said I prefer to put my Xbox in DMZ because I never have to worry about opening a certain port because they are all open. UPnP can give you good results but some routers fair better than others so I don't even bother with it. DMZ is just the easiest option. This doesn't pose a security risk for consoles because they can't be hacked. Hope that helps, essentially you are achieving the same outcome no matter what method you choose.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14501 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @BOOG1EJUICE66
    Do not swear
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Thank you. I am trying to address anything 'netcode' or hit reaction related. I am still trying to figure out whats the best way to participate in the forums (here, reddit, twitter). I feel like that you players are actually doing a much better job as long as you feel that you are heard and your concerns are answered and tried to get addressed. I do have to read often thru hate and frustration. But i am a gamer too, i get it.

    I think it is most excellent having one of you guys in here answering and responding to things.
    Thank you for taking the time to do so.
  • BOOG1EJUICE66
    57 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    mischkag wrote: »
    Hey guys, again thanks a lot for your feedback and productive input. First of all we DO NOT deliberately punish low ping players. Infact i worked really hard to make the game as responsive and tight for low ping players as possible. However, for high network variance(or fluctuation), i got to buffer some more and hence it will be a very smooth experience for them. I did fix quite a bit of hit detection related issues already, but it will take time before it gets out in a patch. Will be featured in CTE soon though. Region locks would obviously help, a first step should be a region lock option for rented servers. If you pay for a server, you should imho have the power and choice to do that.
    The extrapolation offset is essentially the time i need to add for lag compensation to make sure we always have 2 states to interpolate between and not run into extrapolation whre it becomes an educated guessing game. High pingers will have such a fluctuation that you often have them running into extrapolation on your client and once a new state from them comes in, a pop/teleport/rubberband may occur. Of course that could be blended more smoothly, but you really dont want to place soldiers on any client where they have in fact never been on the server or the originating client. I know this is a bit technical, but it really is not so simple to make the game super responsive and rewarding for low ping players while the game has to be still playable for high ping ones. As long as we can have higher ping players due to lack of region support, i need to make at least sure the game runs for everybody. Sure, I'd love to reward the low ping player more, but an active punishment for high ping does not feel right to me.

    So a passive punishment for low pingers is right?
    @BOOG1EJUICE66
    Do not swear

    Dude I posted that weeks ago
  • Immortal_0neShot
    384 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    First improve better region support if not dont sell in those regions. Because you are basicly ripping them of. You create a good experience for the high ping player of tje player who is OOR due to lack of server support therefore you are ruining the experience for the liw ping players and in region players. I now its all about money but sooner or later you will be shooting yourselrlf in the foot with this logic. Many people i know since day 1 BF veterans fron 1942 and BF2 leave or left this franchise because of the constant excuses or cutting corners. Not directed at you as a dev because you respond but many feel being ignored for years. Being mocked by Pinto and otjer former devs. Hope for the best is what i do but im still a biy sceptical because Sony and MS have a use thing to say if you wajt to cap servers but dont provide enough coverage. Have a good weekend.
  • jdbelcher1998
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    You may have wanted to start your own thread with this post since it doesn't really concern hit detection, but i'll share my response anyway. I have used all three options with exactly the same success and would venture to say you will get your NAT open no matter what you choose. With that being said I prefer to put my Xbox in DMZ because I never have to worry about opening a certain port because they are all open. UPnP can give you good results but some routers fair better than others so I don't even bother with it. DMZ is just the easiest option. This doesn't pose a security risk for consoles because they can't be hacked. Hope that helps, essentially you are achieving the same outcome no matter what method you choose.
    Yeah, you're right about that—sorry guys. I mean it's related, but only tangentially so. Regardless, thanks for the reply. I got a couple of messages from other guys here that have been helpful. I went ahead and tried the DMZ option and I'm not noticing ping variances anymore at all (though I don't notice any change in gameplay either). I'm still getting a Type 2 NAT as I was with port forward, but my router's firewall is still enabled so that's probably why (does this matter?). I had several terrible games last night, though, with tons of WTF moments and the netgraph didn't help explain it much...a bit high srv tick, but nothing above the limits. Very strange after having four or five 3-kd games earlier in the day. I'm going to continue with some ping tests today to see if I'm still getting a bit of jitter on my end—I don't trust that my ISP is giving me all that clean a signal. Thanks for the advice.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    You may have wanted to start your own thread with this post since it doesn't really concern hit detection, but i'll share my response anyway. I have used all three options with exactly the same success and would venture to say you will get your NAT open no matter what you choose. With that being said I prefer to put my Xbox in DMZ because I never have to worry about opening a certain port because they are all open. UPnP can give you good results but some routers fair better than others so I don't even bother with it. DMZ is just the easiest option. This doesn't pose a security risk for consoles because they can't be hacked. Hope that helps, essentially you are achieving the same outcome no matter what method you choose.
    Yeah, you're right about that—sorry guys. I mean it's related, but only tangentially so. Regardless, thanks for the reply. I got a couple of messages from other guys here that have been helpful. I went ahead and tried the DMZ option and I'm not noticing ping variances anymore at all (though I don't notice any change in gameplay either). I'm still getting a Type 2 NAT as I was with port forward, but my router's firewall is still enabled so that's probably why (does this matter?). I had several terrible games last night, though, with tons of WTF moments and the netgraph didn't help explain it much...a bit high srv tick, but nothing above the limits. Very strange after having four or five 3-kd games earlier in the day. I'm going to continue with some ping tests today to see if I'm still getting a bit of jitter on my end—I don't trust that my ISP is giving me all that clean a signal. Thanks for the advice.

    The netgraph will never show you if you are fighting a poor connection.

    Some issues are in the code and on the server side.
Sign In or Register to comment.