n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 13, 2010 11:23:21 GMT -5
The stability of your connection, packet loss, and jitter matter too.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Dec 13, 2010 13:07:38 GMT -5
So I have one basic question:
Will the upcoming patch, which is supposed to fix issues regarding moderate and strict NAT types and matchmaking, improve the lag? (Which is more noticeable than in MW2, I agree.)
I have a "moderate" NAT type in BO, but an open one in MW2. I consistently have 3 bars in this game but always had 4 in MW2.
|
|
|
Post by saddaminsane on Dec 13, 2010 19:38:34 GMT -5
well treyarch uses slight downscaled player models and faster general player movement speed ( i think- i went back to play a bit of mw2 and found myself a bit sluggish in speed compared to BO)
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 13, 2010 23:06:08 GMT -5
So I have one basic question: Will the upcoming patch, which is supposed to fix issues regarding moderate and strict NAT types and matchmaking, improve the lag? (Which is more noticeable than in MW2, I agree.) I have a "moderate" NAT type in BO, but an open one in MW2. I consistently have 3 bars in this game but always had 4 in MW2. Okay your situation is confusing. You can only have 1 NAT setting. That means that one of the 2 games is wrong. if you are truly on a moderate NAT setting then the patch should help, but you will only know if it actually does anything until you try it out.
|
|
|
Post by discopanda on Dec 14, 2010 2:45:41 GMT -5
CoD definitely uses pixel collision. If you're one pixel away from shooting someone standing still with a sniper rifle, they aren't going to get hit.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 14, 2010 3:38:53 GMT -5
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Dec 14, 2010 4:43:35 GMT -5
There's a reason "Hitbox" is in quotations in each of those.
Hitscans use per-pixel/per-voxel hit detection.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 14, 2010 4:48:51 GMT -5
and that is based on the character model? How does that work? and then how does that translate when anti-lag is applied?
|
|
|
Post by illram on Dec 14, 2010 13:57:57 GMT -5
So I have one basic question: Will the upcoming patch, which is supposed to fix issues regarding moderate and strict NAT types and matchmaking, improve the lag? (Which is more noticeable than in MW2, I agree.) I have a "moderate" NAT type in BO, but an open one in MW2. I consistently have 3 bars in this game but always had 4 in MW2. Okay your situation is confusing. You can only have 1 NAT setting. That means that one of the 2 games is wrong. if you are truly on a moderate NAT setting then the patch should help, but you will only know if it actually does anything until you try it out. Tell me about, I have no idea how that is possible. I popped in MW2 to confirm, and sure enough, "Open" NAT. Moderate on BO. No idea how that works. I considered forwarding relevant ports on my router to see if that made me "open," but it requires switching to static IP to do so. I used to do that but in my house it's too much of a pain in the butt now. (Lots of laptops, wifi printers, wife who is confused by it, etc.)
|
|
flux
True Bro
Posts: 10,007
|
Post by flux on Dec 14, 2010 14:24:21 GMT -5
I too have 'moderate' NAT on BO and 'open' on MW2. Last night I ran the ethernet cable from my Xbox directly to my modem instead of to the wireless router (has ethernet ports). This made my BO NAT 'open'.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Dec 14, 2010 15:18:01 GMT -5
That would jeopardize my wife's ability to stream "Americas Next Top Model" while I play CoD. It's already tenuous enough that I play video games, I don't think our marriage could take that kind of strain.
|
|
flux
True Bro
Posts: 10,007
|
Post by flux on Dec 14, 2010 15:51:43 GMT -5
I hear ya bro. My wife doesn't like the video game addiction. Luckily she doesn't use the internet too much. I swapped it back before I went to bed.
On topic, I noticed a much improved connection. My shots were connecting very quickly. That may have been coincidence though. I'll try it again tonight.
Along the lines of n1gh7's questions, is the hitscan processed on the client side? This anti-lag sounds a bit iffy. There aren't really invisible "Hitboxes" are there?!
|
|
|
Post by spectral on Dec 14, 2010 17:25:15 GMT -5
I guess this depends on what you mean by "invisible hitboxes". If all of the hit detection code is working according to plan, then there should be no significant difference between the location of the target that you see on the screen and where you have to aim to hit it (i.e. don't need to lead/follow the target to compensate for lag).
But say that you're playing a game where you are host (0 ping) and you shoot at someone with a god awful ping (400 millisec). What you are seeing and aiming at is the servers guess about where your target will be based on what they were doing about 400 millisecs ago. What if they changed direction 200 millsec ago? The server won't know about it for another 200 millisecs but your shot should probably miss them from their point of view. But from your point of view, you should get a hit since you were on target as far as you could see. This would probably seem like invisible hit boxes to either the shooter or target.
The final decision about whether you made a hit or not is worked out on the server (don't know what the server would choose in the example above).
This isn't ideal but if you want to have a game where all players can aim directly on target and there's minimal latency responding to player controllers, then it's hard to see how to avoid it. If server ping gets too high then it's a pretty impossible situation to work out.
|
|
|
Post by caboose on Dec 15, 2010 1:50:45 GMT -5
Well, you definitely need to lead your target when you're not host or very close to the host, and you shoot at an RC-XD or a guy sprinting.
|
|
|
Post by ray661 on Dec 15, 2010 1:52:15 GMT -5
^this is exactly how you can be around a corner on your screen, but still die.
|
|
flux
True Bro
Posts: 10,007
|
Post by flux on Dec 16, 2010 9:31:31 GMT -5
Now that the patch came out I have 'OPEN' NAT even through my router. Could it have changed the way the NAT is evaluated?
|
|