tooros
True Bro
Pony Stark
Posts: 1,306
|
Post by tooros on Nov 10, 2011 5:24:57 GMT -5
Hi - the official forums (I know... ) are full of people claiming that the lag compensation is ruining the game for them and they have insane internet connection speeds both up + down.
Could someone please explain this to me?
I don't understand how high speed/low ping could be turned into a bad online experience.
It's obvious how lag is a problem but 'lag compensation?'
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Nov 10, 2011 6:59:19 GMT -5
For lag compensation understanding - watch this:
I'm having the same issue as many in that despite having a good connection and low ping, I'm getting only 3 bars in game, and constantly seem to be about half a second behind other players despite being first to shoot on my screen.
|
|
bravo2zero
True Bro
I'm super excited guys
Posts: 10,342
|
Post by bravo2zero on Nov 10, 2011 7:07:52 GMT -5
Compared with MW2 and Blops I have found MW3 to be better with Lag. I'm normally a 3 bar connection from the UK.
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Nov 10, 2011 8:35:57 GMT -5
For lag compensation understanding - watch this: I'm having the same issue as many in that despite having a good connection and low ping, I'm getting only 3 bars in game, and constantly seem to be about half a second behind other players despite being first to shoot on my screen. that video is bulldoo-doo ass nothing & i wish you noobs would quit posting that doo-doo. you CAN NOT compare live footage of a video game running 60FPS (variable) on a client vs a 20fps (variable) demo recording from a host. lag compensation on console is in all COD's from COD4+. what happens on console is that if you're the host and everyone's average ping is UNDER XXms ping (i honestly dont recall) then your connection is not touched. Once the average ping is ABOVE XXms, then there is a moving average amount of lag that is applied to you, the host, to keep things "more fair". You can see this by hacking the game & showing the ping counter as host. if you just want a semi-accurate example, in most lobbies full of 4-bar connections the system will GIVE you as host 30-40ms worth of lag to keep the ROFLSTOMPING in check. However. You get a mixed lobby full of 3/4 bars and ONE yellow bar douche joins in, it's game over. It'll throw the average latency so high youll wind up being THE biggest lag-ass in your own lobby. visually the lag can grow into the 500-750ms range for the HOST. That is what lag compensation isNow if you just want to toss around videos. Mine was far better.
|
|
|
Post by onslaught147 on Nov 10, 2011 11:08:59 GMT -5
toysrme6v0So basically it will make the host lag if other players have bad connection? Since I was lagging bad in a game despite having a 4 bar connection. I left the game, and found out that I was actually the host. That was very confusing, since I was lagging so much my guy was skipping steps, and other players seemed to randomly teleport. Yet, that is a game feature?
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Nov 10, 2011 11:23:37 GMT -5
yes. otherwise youd run into me on XBL and i'd simply be able to name whatever score i wanted every match b/c id out-gun & out-shoot everyone on my host.
altho at that point it's not lag compensation its just lag. probably someone having some packet loss issues.
|
|
|
Post by onslaught147 on Nov 10, 2011 11:34:13 GMT -5
And you know for a fact they use that same system in MW3? I can definitively see that, seeing as the lag situation has gotten worse rather then better.
More importantly though, do you believe the situation can be improved be a simple update? Seeing as modding your version of the game allowed you to help the lag situation. Do you have any tips, network settings whatever, that will help improve the lag situation?
Also, very informative video, thank you for that.
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Nov 10, 2011 11:52:21 GMT -5
yes. 1) buy some upload bandwidth 2) dissolve your friendships with anyone no on your network backbone 3) play random only instead of party games 4) back out
so no, there's little you can do
|
|
|
Post by gilyard1heisman on Nov 10, 2011 13:07:41 GMT -5
does theater mode effect lag and connection quality at all?
|
|
kilo
True Bro
Posts: 10,070
|
Post by kilo on Nov 10, 2011 13:10:58 GMT -5
i've been able to quick scope people running stationary because i was lagging. not really fair for them
|
|
|
Post by vulgar on Nov 11, 2011 0:59:16 GMT -5
Makes me lol to see people complain about problems due to them getting host. On my connection, the matchmaking system spends about 1-2 seconds looking for 50ms games, and then immediately goes to 75ms. Canceling and retrying does nothing, it's the same result everytime.
So I've yet to experience MW3 on a 4 bar. I bet it's fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by onslaught147 on Nov 11, 2011 2:47:33 GMT -5
Actually Vulgar, no it's not great. Which is the worst of it. You spend all your time hoping for the magic of a 4 bar connection. When you get it though, you find shit still sucks. So it's all bad man, it's all bad.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Nov 11, 2011 4:51:41 GMT -5
that video is bulldoo-doo ass nothing & i wish you noobs would quit posting that doo-doo. you CAN NOT compare live footage of a video game running 60FPS (variable) on a client vs a 20fps (variable) demo recording from a host. Oh ffs, stop being so damn obnoxious about things. The video I posted gives a perfectly good indication of how latency affects the game, and whilst it may not be anywhere near as in-depth as full technical explanations, it's more than good enough for demo purposes as it shows the key issues around information to/from the host and how this impacts what happens.
|
|
|
Post by chizbro on Nov 12, 2011 17:22:27 GMT -5
If this is true (host is likely the worst) then I might lose my powerline ethernet connection and go back to wireless.
I don't have a great connection but since i got powerline I always seem to end up as host!
|
|
|
Post by bamblakopz on Nov 12, 2011 17:45:21 GMT -5
For lag compensation understanding - watch this: I'm having the same issue as many in that despite having a good connection and low ping, I'm getting only 3 bars in game, and constantly seem to be about half a second behind other players despite being first to shoot on my screen. That video is brilliant in just showing examples of how the "host" set-up fails. From here on out, COD should have dedicated servers, where IW/Treyarch has servers running. After 1-2 years, they can flip it off and then put it back to the host set-up, instead of completely shutting down the servers and online play for the game.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Nov 12, 2011 18:41:35 GMT -5
For lag compensation understanding - watch this: I'm having the same issue as many in that despite having a good connection and low ping, I'm getting only 3 bars in game, and constantly seem to be about half a second behind other players despite being first to shoot on my screen. That video is brilliant in just showing examples of how the "host" set-up fails. From here on out, COD should have dedicated servers, where IW/Treyarch has servers running. After 1-2 years, they can flip it off and then put it back to the host set-up, instead of completely shutting down the servers and online play for the game. Once I had enough fun lving up, I plan to play dedicated sever on PC exclusively.
|
|
brandon7s
True Bro
XBox: Rune Gladius
Posts: 363
|
Post by brandon7s on Nov 13, 2011 2:54:18 GMT -5
After quite a few hours today I have come to the conclusion that MW3's lag compensation code is game-breakingly bad. Why, oh WHY did they have to alter it from MW2, I will never understand.
|
|
|
Post by mrboo2501 on Nov 14, 2011 12:08:59 GMT -5
After quite a few hours today I have come to the conclusion that MW3's lag compensation code is game-breakingly bad. Why, oh WHY did they have to alter it from MW2, I will never understand. This weekend was my first dive into MW3 and it just kills me the number of engagements I'm losing just cause of the lag - I was getting cut through like butter. And it's really had an impact on my gamestyle. I find myself trying to flank/ambush more, and now I'm avoiding head on engagements. It's funny how in COD4 and MW2 (PS3) the overall system was pretty solid, but in BLOPS and MW3 it's gotten worse and worse.
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Nov 14, 2011 21:29:58 GMT -5
The rule of thumb for me is "If you died so fast you couldn't register the individual shots it took to kill you, lag had a heavy hand in your death."
I know you can get sniped, shotgunned, explodified, and headshotificated. But when an AR/SMG "instantly kills you" with center mass shots, in a manner in which you had almost no way to humanly defend yourself, lag just scored yet another cheap death.
|
|
|
Post by MastaQ on Nov 14, 2011 22:31:52 GMT -5
The rule of thumb for me is "If you died so fast you couldn't register the individual shots it took to kill you, lag had a heavy hand in your death." I know you can get sniped, shotgunned, explodified, and headshotificated. But when an AR/SMG "instantly kills you" with center mass shots, in a manner in which you had almost no way to humanly defend yourself, lag just scored yet another cheap death. Happens ALL THE TIME for me. By far my number 1 complaint. It always sucks when in one game you own the enemy team and the next you have a .5 KD because they always seem to instantly kill you.
|
|
brandon7s
True Bro
XBox: Rune Gladius
Posts: 363
|
Post by brandon7s on Nov 15, 2011 0:09:58 GMT -5
After quite a few hours today I have come to the conclusion that MW3's lag compensation code is game-breakingly bad. Why, oh WHY did they have to alter it from MW2, I will never understand. This weekend was my first dive into MW3 and it just kills me the number of engagements I'm losing just cause of the lag - I was getting cut through like butter. And it's really had an impact on my gamestyle. I find myself trying to flank/ambush more, and now I'm avoiding head on engagements. It's funny how in COD4 and MW2 (PS3) the overall system was pretty solid, but in BLOPS and MW3 it's gotten worse and worse. Agreed. It's enough to make me want to go back and play MW2 again (which has maps that are infinitely better anyways). I'm hoping that IF does some patching and reduces the effect of their ridiculous lag compensation code. I can dream, can't I? Looks like I'll be playing a lot more BF3, heh.
|
|
|
Post by wantonRULE on Nov 15, 2011 0:50:43 GMT -5
i had a dreadful night of games. very rage inducing and frustrating. i don't understand why blops and mw3 are doing this. this is the main reason i hated blops sometimes because of the crappy lag.
nothing more painful then shooting and instantly dying and on the killcam your guy just stands there looking like an r-tard. i've got the "spy-game" award every single round tonight because i was perplexed at the deaths and just watched the replay. super sad face.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Showzen on Nov 15, 2011 5:18:20 GMT -5
I have not noticed any "lag compensation" when I am host(frequently). I have 100Mb up/down, so I am frequently eventually chosen as host. I find MW3 plays identically for me as it did for MW2. I won't touch on the awefulness of BO. The only MW3 lag I experience is when others are the host, and only when they are a poor host.
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Nov 15, 2011 10:30:38 GMT -5
It's really a shame. I want to like MW3, but with the lag issues, weird weapon balance decisions and terribly designed maps, it's making it very hard. I'm taking a break to play some Skyrim right now and come back to MW3 with a fresh look in a few days, but I'm not optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by randomguy987 on Nov 15, 2011 20:19:04 GMT -5
I have not noticed any "lag compensation" when I am host(frequently). I have 100Mb up/down, so I am frequently eventually chosen as host. I find MW3 plays identically for me as it did for MW2. I won't touch on the awefulness of BO. The only MW3 lag I experience is when others are the host, and only when they are a poor host. I'm jealous. I have much less awesome internet (3u/15d-ish) and getting host is essentially a punishment in MW3. If anyone has any tips regarding how NOT to be chosen as host, I'd love to hear them.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Nov 16, 2011 9:59:59 GMT -5
The rule of thumb for me is "If you died so fast you couldn't register the individual shots it took to kill you, lag had a heavy hand in your death." I know you can get sniped, shotgunned, explodified, and headshotificated. But when an AR/SMG "instantly kills you" with center mass shots, in a manner in which you had almost no way to humanly defend yourself, lag just scored yet another cheap death. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by banchi on Nov 17, 2011 17:36:57 GMT -5
Does anyone have any clue why this seems to be happening more and more in BLOPS and MW3 (PS3 version)?? I see all this host lag compensation talk, and theatre causing issues, but does anyone have knowledge why it seems to have increased in later versions of the same game?? I played MW2 up until the release of MW3 and very rarely do I ever feel I am getting shortchanged because of lag. On MW3 I literally know an enemy is coming or where they are and in the instant I see them I am getting hit with the one bullet of doom death, or see an enemy only to have them almost teleport behind a wall. I host a good amount of games and d/l u/l speed of about 20 for both.
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Nov 18, 2011 10:14:46 GMT -5
Does anyone have any clue why this seems to be happening more and more in BLOPS and MW3 (PS3 version)?? I see all this host lag compensation talk, and theatre causing issues, but does anyone have knowledge why it seems to have increased in later versions of the same game?? I played MW2 up until the release of MW3 and very rarely do I ever feel I am getting shortchanged because of lag. On MW3 I literally know an enemy is coming or where they are and in the instant I see them I am getting hit with the one bullet of doom death, or see an enemy only to have them almost teleport behind a wall. I host a good amount of games and d/l u/l speed of about 20 for both. I believe it has to do with the minds behind the game's coding and design. MW2 and all prior games were made by the original Infinity Ward team before West and Zampella left, starting the team exodus. After the IW breakup, things changed considerably. I believe the new designers, in an effort to innovate, added features like theater mode and lag compensation which affected the netcode in unexpected ways, something that probably would have been caught by the original IW. Either that, or marketing thought the appeal of the new features outweighed the flak they would get for poor network performance. Most of this is just guesswork but seems likely IMHO. In Black Ops case, I think Treyarch had difficulty with the netcode in Black Ops due to the old engine and netcode running with the added stress of new features like theater mode. Unfortunately the new IW team didn't learn from that mistake.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Nov 24, 2011 16:16:56 GMT -5
The real question is, what are they trying to accomplish? Why are they insisting on peer-to-peer matchmaking? I think they have two goals: make multiplayer games easier to start, and make the multiplayer experience more consistent in regards to rules and server setup. Both of these goals can be accomplished with dedicated servers. Black Ops on the PC is proof of this. Ranked servers were extremely homogenous (to the point of being annoying, for me) and finding a server was never an issue. I think they even have a button that sends you straight into a game, for the lazy and/or ignorant.
What exactly is being accomplished with the current matchmaking that can't be accomplished with dedicated servers? Even for XBox and PS3 I bet you'd find plenty of people willing to host PC-based dedicated servers, for free of charge. Heck in Black Ops PC the people running dedicated servers were even *paying Activision* for the privilege!
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Nov 24, 2011 17:35:30 GMT -5
The real question is, what are they trying to accomplish? Why are they insisting on peer-to-peer matchmaking? Its cheaper than maintaining a dedicated server network. Also console players cant muster enough complaint or a strong enough boycott. Basically they know they feed you shit, and they know the masses will take a great big bowl of it with a smile of their face.
|
|