|
Post by iw5000 on Nov 29, 2011 16:40:47 GMT -5
Well, you aren't really 'rebuking'. Like I said earlier....both of our experiences can be true. So the only real question to ask, is this. What percentage of people are having success so far, compared to prior games? Unfortunately, no one knows that answer or can even find it out. Yeah, that was suppose to be rebut. To quote Robert Bowling: fourzerotwo @from_chaos "Yes, both platforms will be receiving updates to address lag concerns." Infinity Ward knows. Here's the thing, every company puts statements like that out, regardless of whether the system is working great or bad.
|
|
|
Post by lostwld on Nov 29, 2011 16:43:09 GMT -5
any idea when that will be? also, I dont twitter, so are there sites where info like this is posted? Even if you don't have a twitter account you should be able to check robert bowling's twitter feed. Link: twitter.com/#!/fourzerotwo It looks like they're going to try to do another update with balance tweaks this week.
|
|
|
Post by jasonfreshmaker on Nov 29, 2011 17:08:45 GMT -5
They have definitely changed something since mw2 and especially black ops. I have a pretty great connection with 24M down & 24M up so I tend to get host a lot. In BO having host was pretty much a god mode. I mean people hardly ever complained about lag on my host but I definitely had an edge on gun-on-gun and even chopper gunner and the gunship were a lot easier to get kills with. But in mw3 it's either a) i don't even notice I'm the host or b) i seem to be little laggy because I'm the host. Luckily option a has been more common for me.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Nov 29, 2011 17:39:20 GMT -5
tl;dr In other words I feel for people (like me) with shit connections, but we shouldn't create a disincentive to get a better one. Also small rant... >,>
I'm totally in favor of the host having *some* simulated latency to make games more fair, and in any individual game it would actually be the most fair thing to simulate the average latency *of their opponents*. But, if that's how it works all the time then it's broken for two reasons.
First somebody with a good connection is going to pull host more often, and that means sacking them with a midling latency all the friggin time, while their opponents get to enjoy having such a nice host by having even lower latency than the host. O,o Yeah that's BS, especially when it's going to happen all the time.
Second, if it's about being fair then the simulated latency should be applied to all players who's latency is less than X, not merely the host. If going for the average then all players with less than average latency should have average simulated latency.
That's not to say it's how I would do it. Personally, I don't want hosts to have godmode enabled zero latency, but I see no reason NOT to reward them for having such a nice connection. It encourages people to get better internet connections, and thus makes them better hosts, which benefits even people with crappier connections.
IMO the host should have simulated latency equal to the fastest opponent. (Teammates do not count, because that just screws your opponents even more.) The host would be guaranteed to have latency at least as good or better than any of their enemies, but not superhuman. You might have a few games here and there that kinda suck because all your opponents are lagging, but then they are all lagging just as hard or worse and your teammates could be potentially raping them.
I'd also put a hard cap on the simulated latency. It should never go beyond a certain level and be worse than Y. Though I dunno if it would be better to make Y a constant like never worse than 400 ms or if it should be something dynamic like never making it worse than the average ping in the lobby or some such. Or both. You should never have the game it-self lag you so hard that you glitch all over the place, IMO.
As for damage kick there are opinions either way and personally I think it largely comes down to what style of game you want to play. The claim that CoD is a "competitive" game in the sense that MLG means it is false, however. CoD is a mass market arcade style shooter. The game is designed first and foremost to be fun for the masses, both skilled and unskilled. Any tweaks to make it more "competitive" are an afterthought. Personally I think MLG and "competitive" gamers have defined the word a bit too narrowly. There are skills other than gunplay, and there is no reason a game cannot be played competitively even if luck is a major factor. RL sports and non video games do exactly that all the time. In CoD damage kick is in the game, and you are aware of it, so you shouldn't play like it doesn't exist and then rage at it. You try to minimize it's impact on you, and capitalize on it's adverse affect on your enemies. It isn't unfair, it affects everybody. It might allow some supposedly lesser skilled player to kill a higher skilled player, but do we really want a game where anytime two players go against each other the outcome is a foregone conclusion because one is slightly better than the other? Who would want to play that? Individual encounters should never be the measure of a player's skill. You have to average it out over a longer term to get the measure of someone. Higher skilled players will still do better than noobs, and in the end that's all IW and the community at large cares about. The "competitive" just wants the game to hone in on skill levels with a razor's edge to make tournaments and such easier to manage and take less time. That's all well and good, but the game really wasn't made for that and if it was it wouldn't be one of the best selling games of all time. It would cost $25 at launch and probably be download only because most people wouldn't want to play it.
Anyway I'll drop it now. I'm not really sure what I think of esports anymore. I used to be totally behind the idea but it really seems like the "competitive" is obsessed with stripping out everything that makes the games dynamic and fun, but then why would I want to watch somebody play that? I do enjoy watching some SC2 at least. Don't know if I care to watch any FPS's these days, though.
Frankly if "competitive" is really as popular as people think it is and none of the FPS games meet up to the community's standards I don't see why the MLG and others don't just put together a budget and make their own game, or at least a full on TC in the Unreal 3 engine or something. It wouldn't even have to be all that expensive. But I think they know that they have to use the games that are hugely popular if they want to draw attention, and those games are primarily designed to sell, not to be "competitive". I'd rather see people embrace it like in some RL sports. Golf for example. Nobody builds domes over golf courses. Sure they'd be horribly expensive, but even if you did it wouldn't be popular. Being outside in the wind and weather is an accepted part of the game, and people work around it. The wind can be with you or against you and be different for the next guy, but in the end it's still pretty clear who the top players are, luck or no luck.
BTW I also think that things like the damage kick, lag compensation, lag in general, recoil, ect, more often than not just get blamed because people usually feel like they shouldn't have died and lost a fight. Nobody likes to believe the other guy outdid you. Most people will admit to an obvious error, but if they didn't make some glaring mistake they try to blame something else. Bastard just got lucky! bah... Lots of subtle things contribute to winning or losing a firefight, some are in your control, some are in control of your enemy, others are more chaotic. I think the number of "lucky kills" is highly exaggerated. Even so nobody seems to complain about their own lucky kills, and you're probably getting lucky just as much as the next guy, whatever your skill level.
Anyway, the game just is what it is. As TotalBiscuit says, CoD is the Angry Birds of first person shooters. CS and Quake it is not. Companies call their games competitive, because they are. They just aren't "competitive", in the same sense as a lot of people seem to mean it.
|
|
|
Post by GTO on Nov 29, 2011 18:00:44 GMT -5
I play on the XBox and live in the Phoenix area in AZ.
Maybe it has been better for others, but I can say that from my experience with MW3, I have played far more games that seem to have issues with Lag/Latency. I would say that I do not notice any issuess in maybe 1 out of every 3 games.
|
|
|
Post by drift0r on Nov 29, 2011 18:23:47 GMT -5
tl;dr In other words I feel for people (like me) with doo-doo connections, but we shouldn't create a disincentive to get a better one. Something needs to be done because not everybody can get a better connection. The US is pretty bad in a lot of places with internet connections. My only choices are the cable company who has a monopoly over the entire county, or standard issue corporate service AT&T DSL. I chose the Cable company because it's twice the speed at a lesser proportional cost. Even still I'm paying around $75 per month of 9Mbit up, 0.9Mbit down connect with an average ping. There are no other options. None. They don't exist. No other companies, no competitors, nothing. Lots of towns under 50,000 people in the US face this exact same problem. Most games I play I get about 50/50 between 3 and 4 bar connections and pretty much no lag. Matter of fact, I haven't had a lag problem in any game that I can remember. Playing Ground War always pushed it, but that's understandable. Since MW3 came out I have not gotten a 4 bar connection once. The lag compensation doesn't seem to help people in my situation at all. If anything, it's worse. I can't win a gunfight unless the other person is reloading or I come up from behind them. In short, at the end of this rant, the game's lag compensating code is not working. It sucks to the be the host, and it sucks a lot if you have an "average" connection too. A mass market game needs a different lag compensator.
|
|
|
Post by randomguy987 on Nov 30, 2011 2:48:20 GMT -5
It seems as though a high ping (i.e., poor connection) can itself provide an advantage (even if the absence of lag compensation / antilag schemes), *so long as the high-ping player is the aggressor.*
For example, if Player A with 400 ping comes around a corner and opens fire on Player B (let's give B 50 ping for the sake of the example), it takes 200 ms before the host knows that A turned the corner, and an additional 25 ms for the host to pass that information on to B. Given the fast TTKs in this game and the close-quarters map design, that 225 ms advantage will often prove decisive. And B's great connection is really not all that much help to him in this situation because the problem lies with A's connection.
Am I thinking this through right?
|
|
|
Post by toad on Nov 30, 2011 4:55:44 GMT -5
I thought I'd make a quick comment, as it may have some minor relevance to this thread. this is all about Xbox btw...
I play in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. I've been playing MW3 for about 4 weeks. Prior to that, I used to play MW2 and also BO's in this same loaction - I've been here for just over a year now. I was previously in the UK.
I've noticed some differences with matchmaking. In MW2 it would take a long time to get a game, as it would go through the low PING searches and always say 0 good games out 25 games. Eventually it would put me in a game, but I would typically have a 2 bar connection, sometimes 3 if I was lucky. When I played BO's, it would always find me a game immediately, but like MW2, it was typically a 2 bar connection. As a result, I has to adjust my playstyle, and stay out of CQC as much as possible, and be as cunning as possible.
I didn't have a lot of fun to be honest, as I would often lose gun fights where I was positive I shouldn't have. Enemies seemed to take a lot of bullets to kill, and there was always a delay when sniping someone in the head to when the kill actually registered. Oh, and knifing someone was almost impossible.
Since moving to MW3, the matchmaking has changed, as it ONLY puts me in games with people from the UAE region, but I have noticed the occasional 3 bar connection on some players, but it's rare. So what i'm saying is, for the past few weeks, I've been playing games which are constantly filled with 12 players ALL on 4 bar connections, and it's been fantastic. When I search for a game, is there's some available, it puts me in right at the < 50ms search - sweet. The only downside, is that sometimes I can't actually get a game. Oddly, it will NOT put me in a game with UK / European players like BO and MW2 did.
Anyway... Even when we're all playing with 4 bar connections, I still have those situations where you watch the KillCam I think it must be lag, as that player was not in that position when it was actually happening. Makes me think that the KillCam us just generally buggy.
|
|
|
Post by chizbro on Nov 30, 2011 9:53:57 GMT -5
About 1/2 games have a noticeable negative impact. People who say they see no issue clearly aren't experiencing the problem, so can't really comment on how much of an issue this is for a significant no. of users.
I usuakly can tell after 1 encounter if i am host. Esp. With mk.14...
I have regularly had games where i fire shot after shot into an opponent and then instantly die. PARTICULARLY annoying when you are shooting them in the back. This only happens when i am host. Which seems to be often, despite my average connection (in fact if i join a game after start within 1 min it usually migrates to me... don't know why. I have a new style xbox if that is a factor).
On mw2 this rarely happened except when my connection was bad (other users streaming tv etc), and i never had instant_death from auto weapons. it is very frustrating!
|
|
|
Post by reader on Nov 30, 2011 10:35:50 GMT -5
The worst news for me is, I usually get not so great connection to games I play, I gave up on PvP in WOW because of that.
But in this game... I am more or less perma 4 bars...
|
|
|
Post by drakealdan on Nov 30, 2011 10:54:13 GMT -5
It seems as though a high ping (i.e., poor connection) can itself provide an advantage (even if the absence of lag compensation / antilag schemes), *so long as the high-ping player is the aggressor.* For example, if Player A with 400 ping comes around a corner and opens fire on Player B (let's give B 50 ping for the sake of the example), it takes 200 ms before the host knows that A turned the corner, and an additional 25 ms for the host to pass that information on to B. Given the fast TTKs in this game and the close-quarters map design, that 225 ms advantage will often prove decisive. And B's great connection is really not all that much help to him in this situation because the problem lies with A's connection. Am I thinking this through right? Yes, when you put it like this, it seems this way, sometimes. I will turn a corner and bust shots and it's like my opponents are moving in slow motion. I will just run over everybody the entire match. ... sometimes I'll get turned on, and it's like I'm moving in slow motion...
|
|
|
Post by mrboo2501 on Nov 30, 2011 11:05:45 GMT -5
tl;dr In other words I feel for people (like me) with doo-doo connections, but we shouldn't create a disincentive to get a better one. Something needs to be done because not everybody can get a better connection. The US is pretty bad in a lot of places with internet connections. I don't know - I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if robust service is unavailable/not affordable, then I don't think you can expect too much. I just don't think developers should cater to what I perceive to be below a median threshold. Who knows, maybe it'll get better, but the measuring stick I use is COD4 & MW2 (PS3). Things weren't perfect (heck I'm not looking for perfection), but it was noticeably better than this.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Nov 30, 2011 12:01:21 GMT -5
Something needs to be done because not everybody can get a better connection. In short, at the end of this rant, the game's lag compensating code is not working. It sucks to the be the host, and it sucks a lot if you have an "average" connection too. A mass market game needs a different lag compensator. Nail - head. Whilst I'm sure it's great being able to get 100mb+ internet connections, for many of us it's simply a pipe dream. Due to less than a miles difference in location between myself and a close friend, I lose 9mb in speed (I get 6.7mb to his 16mb). Cable is not available where I live - and this isn't some village in the middle of nowhere either, so I have no other choice than to accept the speed connection I get. The key point here however is that in previous iterations of COD I got better connections: MW2 - 4 bars with a very rare 3 BLOPS - 4 bars with the occasional 3 MW3 - 3 bars with a rare 4 And the MW3 connection is supposedly at <50ms ping according to the matchmaking system! I don't expect devs to cater to those on truly awful connections, but anything over 2mb should be more than enough for most gaming, but to suggest that 5mb+ isn't enough is just ridiculous... IMHO, there's clearly been some change in the netcode, we know this is the case due to the recent version update which reverted to an earlier form of the netcode for the lag issues after IW/SH tried to patch it to improve these issues and instead made it worse... I genuinely hope there is a further improvement soon because the connection problems are ruining a good game.
|
|
|
Post by psijaka on Nov 30, 2011 12:30:04 GMT -5
Nail - head. Whilst I'm sure it's great being able to get 100mb+ internet connections, for many of us it's simply a pipe dream. Due to less than a miles difference in location between myself and a close friend, I lose 9mb in speed (I get 6.7mb to his 16mb). Cable is not available where I live - and this isn't some village in the middle of nowhere either, so I have no other choice than to accept the speed connection I get. The key point here however is that in previous iterations of COD I got better connections: MW2 - 4 bars with a very rare 3 BLOPS - 4 bars with the occasional 3 MW3 - 3 bars with a rare 4 And the MW3 connection is supposedly at <50ms ping according to the matchmaking system! I don't expect devs to cater to those on truly awful connections, but anything over 2mb should be more than enough for most gaming, but to suggest that 5mb+ isn't enough is just ridiculous... 6.7Mb/s a pipe dream for me; I really do live in a remote spot and am pleased to get 1.9Mb/s download; 380kb/s upload. Despite this I often get a ping around 70ms on Battlefield Play4Free, and lag just isn't a problem for me in P4F. I don't recall COD4 being too laggy, but BOps gave rise to too many WTF moments. Haven't bought MW3 yet; not sure I will with issues like this. And the maps.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 30, 2011 12:34:13 GMT -5
I really do live in a remote spot and am pleased to get 1.9Mb/s download; 380kb/s upload. Despite this I often get a ping around 70ms on Battlefield Play4Free Because the dedicated servers you're connecting to are relatively close to you. Also, recent posters, you have my condolences: my connection is 25mbps down and I find I lag far too much in public games so I can't imagine an even worse connection. It seems as though a high ping (i.e., poor connection) can itself provide an advantage (even if the absence of lag compensation / antilag schemes), *so long as the high-ping player is the aggressor.* For example, if Player A with 400 ping comes around a corner and opens fire on Player B (let's give B 50 ping for the sake of the example), it takes 200 ms before the host knows that A turned the corner, and an additional 25 ms for the host to pass that information on to B. Given the fast TTKs in this game and the close-quarters map design, that 225 ms advantage will often prove decisive. And B's great connection is really not all that much help to him in this situation because the problem lies with A's connection. Am I thinking this through right? Someone else can correct me, but I think you are right. Bob has super high ping (400ms). Alice has very low ping (50ms) and is waiting at a corner. Alice has been stationary at her present location for at least Bob's ping. Neither are host. Bob rounds the corner and is able to see Alice because Alice was correctly updated 200ms ago and her location has not changed since then. Bob then takes 45ms to kill Alice (i.e. knife). Once Bob rounds the corner, it takes 200ms + 25ms before Alice can see Bob. However, because Bob stabbed her 200ms + 25ms + 45ms ago, Alice simply dies instantly. More correctly, roughly 20ms after seeing Bob, which an average person would amount to being instant. Of course, this implies no anti-lag and no lag compensation, but the fact that Alice is stationary (and has been for some time) means that neither would do much. Den has commented on this before and I believe his conclusion was that latency ultimately favors rushers because the server simply accepts whomever had the early time stamp for a kill.
|
|
|
Post by joe8beast on Nov 30, 2011 14:50:22 GMT -5
i do notice a huge difference in hit detection in this game, but opposite of what everyone appears to see, it seems like i can actually hit ppl that im actually aiming at, with a sniper, or with any other gun, and im extremely thankful, it seemed like in any other game, standing still and slowly moving in one direction made you invincible unless they shot in front of you.
now, it seems like good accuracy and map aware players are rewarded more for preshooting and actually being on target, unlike in other games, where bad aim was a less punished due to the funky lag compensation/ hit detection
|
|
|
Post by MastaQ on Nov 30, 2011 14:56:49 GMT -5
As bad as the lag has been for me, I find it funny that sniping in MW3 is STILL better than it was in Black Ops.
|
|
|
Post by drakealdan on Nov 30, 2011 14:59:54 GMT -5
I ran over a guy repeatedly today. Same guy, killed him over and over and over again. I don't think it was my skill (he had prestiged quite a few times, so I would assume he was not short of experience...)
Does compensation, if it exists, boost both defensive positioning (i.e. staying still while ADS) and rushing? I find sometimes people turning the corner can't react to me, and sometimes I can't react to them.
I find I prefire a lot, and I have begun to start spraying more than usual because I can't depend on counting hitmarkers and moving on to the next guy.
I also stay away from guns like the Mk. 14, the performance of which I find ultimately depends on the weather and my magic 8-ball.
|
|
|
Post by herezjonnie on Nov 30, 2011 17:29:57 GMT -5
Last week i had been reading a bunch of tweets out of boredom, and I had discovered that my weird connection issues were not uniquely mine. At this point, I could not play MW3 because of all the lag issues. I was going negative every game because the combination of lag and bad spawns prevented me from simply taking enough steps to get a kill.
However, there was the strange advice of handicapping my own internet by lowering my MTU (i still don't really know what this does). This really worked, as now the game seems much fairer or maybe even in my favor. The game turned fun again! (minus the spawns)
As a reference, my internet speed is 28down 1up and I've always had a moderate NAT which i've never got around to fixing
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Jigglypuff on Nov 30, 2011 20:14:07 GMT -5
I'm just gonna quote Den, and call it a day. Lag made so much sense once I read this, and it feels applicable to every game: Ultimate basic out of the way, here is a pivotal technique derived from the design of the engine. Since the beginning of the engine's creation, Quake III Arena, there have remained several constants. For example, the ability to break the speed barrier with several methods, most have come to be known as Strafe Jumping or Bunnyhopping (as it is truly defined - multiple jumps in succession to maintain or gain speed). But another constant, lag. Many games on the Quake 3 engine have their own kind of "impact prediction" or "syncronyzation" or "anti lag", though Call of Duty lacked an effective version until COD4. There are two parts to this: 1) Where players see themselves 2) Where players see others Each player's model trails behind when a player moves, and will never catch up. The time difference of transmitting one's location to the server and then the time it takes the server to transmit that location to others is the separator. The worse a person's ping is, the greater the distance between where other players actually are according to the server and where their models are seen. Without anti-lag, if you have a bad connection, you have to be psychic, shoot far ahead of where you currently see the enemy - you have to shoot him where he sees himself. With COD4's Anti-Lag, everyone is on the same page. --- Now, the factor. Even though all players can now shoot what they see, where they shoot from still remains ahead of that model, where they see themselves - where and when they tell the server they've fired. With a difference in connection speed/quality, a player can turn a corner and shoot the head off of an enemy before the enemy even sees him turn the corner (leading to a lot of "omg howd he hit me so quick hax" and "wtf I got behind cover how did i die"). This works both ways, a good connection against a bad, bad against good, bad against bad. Of course, if both guys have a good connection, they have far less time to act before their model exposes itself, but that gap still exists as long as ping is not zero. In the situation of bad connections, the aggressive player always has the advantage. Turn a corner and lay waste to the enemy before he has a chance to retaliate... before he has something to retaliate against. Playing all-out aggressive will get you killed by the defense, but playing with the understanding of this seperation of your "weapon" and your "body" based on connection, considering it when making a move or waiting for someone else to move in will passively improve your methods of defense and offense.
|
|
|
Post by willij5 on Dec 7, 2011 4:53:46 GMT -5
It seems as though a high ping (i.e., poor connection) can itself provide an advantage (even if the absence of lag compensation / antilag schemes), *so long as the high-ping player is the aggressor.* For example, if Player A with 400 ping comes around a corner and opens fire on Player B (let's give B 50 ping for the sake of the example), it takes 200 ms before the host knows that A turned the corner, and an additional 25 ms for the host to pass that information on to B. Given the fast TTKs in this game and the close-quarters map design, that 225 ms advantage will often prove decisive. And B's great connection is really not all that much help to him in this situation because the problem lies with A's connection. Am I thinking this through right? I was wondering this too, but correct me if I'm wrong but if Player A had a ping of 400ms, it would take atleast that amount of time for him to see his actions on his screen (causing a lil bit of stutter in the process at 400ms possibly?) meanwhile Player B has a faster connection (50ms) so he would see Player A's action in 225ms which equates to 175ms quicker than Player B's screen has updated. Turn that around even further, if Player B turned a corner and shot at Player A, his actions would hit Player A in 225ms time, but Player B would see this action in 50ms time, Player A would have to be able to see the future to be on par with Player B which cannot happen. So if I'm right, its better to have a better connection in 99% of circumstances. Also,...... Am I right in thinking that everything you see on your screen is generated by the host (server)? ie your player model, actions, background, other players etc? because my player movements seem 'instant' on my screen.
|
|
|
Post by randomguy987 on Dec 8, 2011 3:53:37 GMT -5
Am I right in thinking that everything you see on your screen is generated by the host (server)? ie your player model, actions, background, other players etc? because my player movements seem 'instant' on my screen. Good question. I think that most of what you see is generated client-side (i.e., by your console/PC). When you move or shoot or whatever, it happens instantly (or very nearly so) on your screen, THEN you send this info to the host, THEN the host passes it along to other players. For example, I'm pretty sure hitmarkers are generated client-side, but the host plays "referee" about whether your shots were sufficient to kill the target. (Or, if both players were shooting, which one landed the fatal bullet first.) Which explains how, in an environment with latency, you can get 10+ hitmarkers on an enemy, but still lose the gunfight. Or why you can retreat behind cover, yet continue to be shot for an additional second or two (the enemy still thinks you're in the open, so under the COD "what you see is what you get" system, the enemy can still shoot and hit you until the host tells him that you've moved into cover). There are a number of other examples, but I don't know the specifics about how the workload breaks down -- i.e., which tasks/decisions are done locally and which are mediated by the host.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 8, 2011 7:31:48 GMT -5
I start to really feel it's working against me 9 out of 10 times in last few days.
Today I was doing horrible, thought it was lag compensation, but wasn't so sure until...
I got a really lag game, everyone was asking host to leave, yet I did fine, as everyone was lagging not just me eating short end of stick. Now if one game does mean much, I got another one, again super lag, and again I did well.
I think I will stop playing for a few week see what fix they put out, this week has been really bad, most of games I feel I was at a huge disadvantage, shoot someone in the back 5 times with MK14 for them to drop? Hope they fix it or just put network code from old game back, MW3 is one of the worst, as there is no way to make sure you don't lag, the game will lag you even if you have 4 bar.
|
|
|
Post by bedlam36 on Dec 8, 2011 11:08:30 GMT -5
Whatever the system is right now, it's not working. I'll have 4 bars, and it seems everyone I'm playing against is on a different playing field. I use shotguns almost exclusively, so I can really feel the delay in between shots and connections on the enemy. I'll shoot one guy and he will die instantly, then I'll shoot another guy and he will take, literally, over 1 second to fall back and die. I've never experienced stuff like this in other COD's
The thing I can't stand is that it seems like the bars mean nothing in this game. In previous games, I knew I probably shouldn't go rambo with a shotgun on 3 bars, but I knew I was good on 4. This game is completely random, at least to me. Sometimes (very rarely), I'll feel like I have that advantage on a 3 bar, and sometimes I feel at a huge (4 AA-12 shot before hits register) disadvantage on a 4 bar.
And to the OP, you have some strange hatred of a guy who just posts gameplay. He's not a host warrior, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 8, 2011 13:41:35 GMT -5
I just feel so weird that, the only truly fair games I played yesterday were games everyone lags like crazy.
|
|
Evan950
True Bro
PSN: xXCrazyBarksXx
Posts: 869
|
Post by Evan950 on Dec 9, 2011 9:08:20 GMT -5
i hate it when im in a lobby and everyone has a yellow connection, why cant the lag patch come out quicker
why cant the whole F****** world switch to Fibre Optics and we wont be complaining about this bullshit. Stuff you governments
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Dec 9, 2011 18:29:11 GMT -5
Am I the only person getting really annoyed by all of the "YouTube Commentators" constantly complaining about "Lag Compensation"? Anti-lag has been in every Call of Duty (see: being constantly shot around corners in MW2 and Black Ops), and in this game they tweaked things enough that hosts no longer have an advantage. This apparently upsets people like Sandy Ravage who are accustomed to being the host, able to carry a game 50-0 because the enemy can't possibly kill them due to their large connection advantage. Specifically, two videos that Sandy Ravage made are annoying me now: 1, 2They both don't even illustrate any problem with anti-lag. The first shows him losing a fight because of view kick, and the second shows him losing a fight because he missed his shots. And the problem is that 90% of people are idiots and are using stuff like this to cry out for IW to revert back to MW2's anti-lag system. I can't be the only person who feels this way. doo-doo no im tired of it too. the problem is three fold 1) robert bowling is a lieing dude who is NOT a game developer, programmer, or A PERSON THAT KNOWS JACK CRAP. outside of satire, ANY quoting of his twitter feed should IMMEDIATELY result in a 3 month ban2) even virtually everyone on HERE does not accurately know what the flip they're talking about in regards to the console versions of the game. god forbid anyone else has a clue. 3) every n00b on the planet only has "selective memory" when it comes to different patches & games in the entire series. only remembering the good times, when the simple fact is that it's always been the same & they dont bitch & moan any more now than they ever have. only TWO things have ever changed on console since COD4: 1) host selection process 2) lobby selection NOTHING in regards to the hit-scan detection, or networking has changed at any point. and you n00bs keep eating up what roberta blowhard dreams up & says on twitter, only proving your status as being oblivious to anything, with the ability to have an opinion that matters...
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 9, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Am I the only person getting really annoyed by all of the "YouTube Commentators" constantly complaining about "Lag Compensation"? Anti-lag has been in every Call of Duty (see: being constantly shot around corners in MW2 and Black Ops), and in this game they tweaked things enough that hosts no longer have an advantage. This apparently upsets people like Sandy Ravage who are accustomed to being the host, able to carry a game 50-0 because the enemy can't possibly kill them due to their large connection advantage. Specifically, two videos that Sandy Ravage made are annoying me now: 1, 2They both don't even illustrate any problem with anti-lag. The first shows him losing a fight because of view kick, and the second shows him losing a fight because he missed his shots. And the problem is that 90% of people are idiots and are using stuff like this to cry out for IW to revert back to MW2's anti-lag system. I can't be the only person who feels this way. doo-doo no im tired of it too. the problem is three fold 1) robert bowling is a lieing dude who is NOT a game developer, programmer, or A PERSON THAT KNOWS JACK CRAP. outside of satire, ANY quoting of his twitter feed should IMMEDIATELY result in a 3 month ban2) even virtually everyone on HERE does not accurately know what the flip they're talking about in regards to the console versions of the game. god forbid anyone else has a clue. 3) every n00b on the planet only has "selective memory" when it comes to different patches & games in the entire series. only remembering the good times, when the simple fact is that it's always been the same & they dont & moan any more now than they ever have. only TWO things have ever changed on console since COD4: 1) host selection process 2) lobby selection NOTHING in regards to the hit-scan detection, or networking has changed at any point. and you n00bs keep eating up what roberta blowhard dreams up & says on twitter, only proving your status as being oblivious to anything, with the ability to have an opinion that matters... 2 problem with your dumb post. First, you are calling out other people saying they know nothing, but it seems you know nothing as well, as your post have ZERO substance, no info what so ever. Second, I don't give a shit about console version, I am on PC.
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Dec 10, 2011 15:45:27 GMT -5
i have as much knowledge on the subject as the people that wrote it, and have demonstrated that knowledge over a period of the last four years.
what a n00b
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 11, 2011 0:53:37 GMT -5
i have as much knowledge on the subject as the people that wrote it, and have demonstrated that knowledge over a period of the last four years. what a n00b Still no substance what so ever. What a retarded troll.
|
|