j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Nov 24, 2011 17:51:50 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 doo-doo, and they know the masses will take a great big bowl of it with a smile of their face. This is actually a misconception. 99% of the servers would be operated by individuals who are not on the payroll (and a lot of these guys are willing to *pay* to run a server).
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 24, 2011 22:25:14 GMT -5
Heck in Black Ops PC the people running dedicated servers were even *paying Activision* for the privilege! Yeah, the fact that ranked servers cost money is why the fact that IW insists on p2p for the PC platform is so mind boggling for me. Black Ops PC generated revenue for Treyarch regardless if anyone bought the game. The mere act of playing the game cost someone money and they got some of that pie. Its cheaper than maintaining a dedicated server network. See above. Maintaining dedicated servers doesn't cost money, it generates it. Also, the cost of maintaining the servers wouldn't actually fall upon Activision, it would fall on the server farm operator, like Gameservers, etc. To give you an idea of how little regional distribution dedicated servers need, I live in Arizona and I get sub-100 ping from California, Texas, Illinois, Washington, and Missouri (Gameserver locations for Black Ops) on only average internet. I very rarely, if ever, get sub-100 ping in matchmaking games.
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Nov 25, 2011 0:24:50 GMT -5
Dedicated servers on PC can generate money, but dedicated servers on console costs it. You can't rent a Battlefield 3 server and play on it on 360/PS3, those are all DICE's own servers it's running. Seeing as how console sales are an overwhelming majority of COD income, I can see why COD doesn't have dedicated servers.
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Nov 25, 2011 3:28:12 GMT -5
Then chock it up to nothing but SHEER LAZINESS. Throw in steep deadlines and other time crunches.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Nov 25, 2011 10:36:02 GMT -5
Dedicated servers on PC can generate money, but dedicated servers on console costs it. You can't rent a Battlefield 3 server and play on it on 360/PS3, those are all DICE's own servers it's running. Seeing as how console sales are an overwhelming majority of COD income, I can see why COD doesn't have dedicated servers. It doesn't have to be that way. There are plenty of console players who would love to run a dedicated server from a PC. Console games and PC dedicated servers are not incompatible. They just aren't allowed by the publishers (for the reasons I stated above). The world would be a much better place if they would just let people run their own servers.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 25, 2011 17:24:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I think console gamers would love to manage their own servers for the same reason why PC gamers rent their own servers: so they have better control over their gameplay experience (via custom rulesets, map rotation, etc.).
In fact, this was originally considered one of the selling points for Elite back when they first announced it.
|
|
|
Post by seph on Nov 26, 2011 1:42:43 GMT -5
Its the money...
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Nov 28, 2011 10:24:20 GMT -5
To be honest, I'm not sure why everyone is talking about dedicated servers. The lag issues in MW3 have nothing to with whether the servers are Dedicated or P2P. The console version of MW2 was P2P only and it had extremely efficient and reliable network performance. The issue here is lazy game design and bad netcode.
|
|
|
Post by mrboo2501 on Nov 28, 2011 12:51:42 GMT -5
To be honest, I'm not sure why everyone is talking about dedicated servers. The lag issues in MW3 have nothing to with whether the servers are Dedicated or P2P. The console version of MW2 was P2P only and it had extremely efficient and reliable network performance. The issue here is lazy game design and bad netcode. I think it's simply a case of over-engineering. Heh...in this case, I wish the developers just followed the motto "Keep It Simple Stupid". As time's progressed, each iteration of COD probably has gone through some type of evolution to handle all types of netcode issues, including stupid corner cases. I can see a bunch of engineers trying to address the "How to make things better for the high latency player" - and thus the birth of the lag compensation component. Really, did the host in COD4/W@W/MW2 have that much advantage over others? And no, I don't count Black OPs cause that was the beginning of the lag/netcode problems.
|
|
yhzh
True Bro
Posts: 117
|
Post by yhzh on Nov 29, 2011 0:16:44 GMT -5
Funnily enough, for us PC players, black ops demonstrated once again how dedicated servers stomp all over P2P. I almost never died after getting behind cover in black ops, and could actually differentiate between shots as they hit me. It's especially noticeable how enemies die almost immediately instead of after you have already dumped more than enough bullets into them. I love the immediacy and smoothness of dedis, their (semi)absence is my greatest beef with MW2 and now MW3. I have yet to try out the unranked dedicated servers for MW3, but plan to do so soon.
Having ~20 ping and a tweaked network settings changes the gameplay very noticeably. W/ dedis you also have no host that needs to have weird extra lag compensation applied to them.
I really hate IW for disabling lagometer and the ping bar tweak in MW3. It's very difficult to tell who is hosting now, and just what the quality of your connection is.
I will say though that I have been getting host a lot in MW3(nearly every time I quit a match, it host migrates), and I think for me, it is still better than being a regular peer. I have a 100/100 connection, but people seem to hate it when I'm hosting, which works out great for me lol.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 29, 2011 0:29:34 GMT -5
People complained all the time about Black Ops, but I never ever had hit detection issue except when I locally had issues (ex. low frame rate, highly fluctuating ping).
As MW3, you can still tell the quality of your connection easily. If you have three or less bars, your connection sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Nov 29, 2011 8:15:14 GMT -5
As MW3, you can still tell the quality of your connection easily. If you have three or less bars, your connection sucks. So MW3 demands a net connection of at least 10mb before you're classed as having a good connection??? If this is genuinely the case, I'd expect to see a disclaimer somewhere advising of this because that's a crazy requirement considering the variance in net speeds across the world.
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Nov 29, 2011 10:44:21 GMT -5
As MW3, you can still tell the quality of your connection easily. If you have three or less bars, your connection sucks. So MW3 demands a net connection of at least 10mb before you're classed as having a good connection??? If this is genuinely the case, I'd expect to see a disclaimer somewhere advising of this because that's a crazy requirement considering the variance in net speeds across the world. Idk, even running 10/10 connection with <20ms ping, I'm STILL getting 3barred every game. Since I'm central US I can only assume I'm playing people on the coasts, but that still doesn't explain how bad the latency is in some matches.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Nov 29, 2011 13:02:45 GMT -5
I have Verizon Fios, very good numbers when I do the home-connectivity tests, for up/down speeds, and ping. My numbers are always top of the food chain.
That said..... I rarely get four bars, mostly get three (probably 2/3rd of the games) when playing MW3. I even get a fair amount of two bars. So far, the 2-3 bars on MW3 don't seem to be as bad, latency issue-speaking, as the 2-3 bars I used to get on Blops. Maybe a kill or two a game, where it's like one of those 'wtf, not fair' issues.....but 95% of the time, the game plays perfectly fine. It hasn't affected my performance one bit. My playing is right on par with how I did in the prior games.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 29, 2011 13:24:29 GMT -5
You know, pure speed numbers really don't mean much. I have a 10/1 connection and get host all the time.
The consistency of your connection seems to matter much more. Coast to coast (Florida to California) I have <70ms ping. Anywhere this side of the Mississippi is <50.
The game gives me host since everyone can connect to me reasonably well. Also, an open NAT is pretty much required if you ever want host.
You could probably host this game on a 256kbps. It really doesn't take much bandwidth. Ping, packet loss, and connectivity are much more important in host selection.
|
|
|
Post by cashmoves on Nov 29, 2011 16:27:22 GMT -5
true, I play on pretty basic dsl (bc its cheap). my upload max speed is < 1mbs. it doesn't take much at all to play this game. its the consistency of your connection. guys with insane speeds are just dling their porn faster...
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Nov 29, 2011 17:00:42 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 gosh darn golly gee whiz 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. no cock sucker nothing, it doesn't. if you at any point knew anything you'd no better...
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Nov 29, 2011 17:00:53 GMT -5
I seem to remember xcal saying in a video that he got host often not because of the speed of his connection, but because he lives in Houston - that geographically being in the center of the country generally gives him a low ping to all players in the US, so he tends to be chosen as the host. Any truth to that?
|
|
|
Post by toysrme6v0 on Nov 29, 2011 17:16:16 GMT -5
the most important part of the game is to quit playing with parties across the country.
everything else has been virtually the same since COD4 times on console.
if you're lagging, stop playing with parties spread out across different networks and/or get on a different backbone
/thread /all similar whiney ass retarded threads made in the future
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Nov 30, 2011 2:24:08 GMT -5
the most important part of the game is to quit playing with parties across the country. everything else has been virtually the same since COD4 times on console. if you're lagging, stop playing with parties spread out across different networks and/or get on a different backbone/thread /all similar whiney ass retarded threads made in the future Perhaps his highness would like to explain why people who've had consistent 4 bars SINCE COD4 are now being given 2-3 bars instead and having genuine connection issues? I personally have a perfectly good connection, and if I get 4 bars then MW3 plays fine, if I get 3 instead I end up seeming to be about a second behind the other players. I've had 3 bars DESPITE the initial matchmaking showing I was connecting to a game with under 50ms ping, and my own ping via test sites is ALWAYS less than 50ms - so WTF is going on? You claim to have all the answers, so kindly explain this - or are you just going to be abusive again???
|
|
brandon7s
True Bro
XBox: Rune Gladius
Posts: 363
|
Post by brandon7s on Nov 30, 2011 5:34:41 GMT -5
It's toysrme, of COURSE he's going to be abusive.
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Nov 30, 2011 9:20:43 GMT -5
Perhaps his highness would like to explain why people who've had consistent 4 bars SINCE COD4 are now being given 2-3 bars instead and having genuine connection issues? I personally have a perfectly good connection, and if I get 4 bars then MW3 plays fine, if I get 3 instead I end up seeming to be about a second behind the other players. I've had 3 bars DESPITE the initial matchmaking showing I was connecting to a game with under 50ms ping, and my own ping via test sites is ALWAYS less than 50ms - so WTF is going on? You claim to have all the answers, so kindly explain this - or are you just going to be abusive again??? That's just toysrme being himself, don't take it personally.
|
|
mdnl
True Bro
www.youtube.com/NEILoRFCo
Posts: 10,856
|
Post by mdnl on Nov 30, 2011 13:19:12 GMT -5
My biggest gripe with this is that on my screen I only see the person for a nanosecond but on the killcam they have came round the corner, brought up there sight and even missed a few shots before getting on target, all the while I have no idea I'm even in a gunfight...
|
|
moses
True Bro
Posts: 483
|
Post by moses on Nov 30, 2011 14:09:29 GMT -5
Yes, the corner turning is ridiculous in this, especially because of the myriad corners and clutter around the map. It SEEMS like there's more advantage than ever, as I can't count how many times I've gotten shot from behind, ran into a room a little, got prone at a decent angle, and easily died before I could shoot them while ADS at the door way.
Does anyone know what kind of time or ping advantage corner turning brings? If not in MW3, other CoDs? I remember testing a buddy with a shotgun aimed at a corner, and me turning it with an SMG and winning every time.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Dec 1, 2011 10:17:18 GMT -5
As MW3, you can still tell the quality of your connection easily. If you have three or less bars, your connection sucks. So MW3 demands a net connection of at least 10mb before you're classed as having a good connection???. It's never about bandwidth, it's always about ping.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Dec 1, 2011 10:23:18 GMT -5
the most important part of the game is to quit playing with parties across the country. everything else has been virtually the same since COD4 times on console. if you're lagging, stop playing with parties spread out across different networks and/or get on a different backbone/thread /all similar whiney ass retarded threads made in the future Perhaps his highness would like to explain why people who've had consistent 4 bars SINCE COD4 are now being given 2-3 bars instead and having genuine connection issues? I personally have a perfectly good connection, and if I get 4 bars then MW3 plays fine, if I get 3 instead I end up seeming to be about a second behind the other players. I've had 3 bars DESPITE the initial matchmaking showing I was connecting to a game with under 50ms ping, and my own ping via test sites is ALWAYS less than 50ms - so WTF is going on? You claim to have all the answers, so kindly explain this - or are you just going to be abusive again??? He does kind of have a point though. If you have friends you join up with, make sure you trying pinging each of them directly to see what kind of latency you have between them. One bad apple spoils the bunch.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Dec 1, 2011 11:33:18 GMT -5
Yes, the corner turning is ridiculous in this, especially because of the myriad corners and clutter around the map. It SEEMS like there's more advantage than ever, as I can't count how many times I've gotten shot from behind, ran into a room a little, got prone at a decent angle, and easily died before I could shoot them while ADS at the door way. This could be due to poor matchmaking. Sounds like you are being paired with people who have high pings. Are you playing an unpopular game type? Not saying it's your fault, just exploring possibilities. I definitely am not having the same quality netcode experience I've come to expect from CoD. Even when my ping is 80-100ms I have a much better experience on dedicated servers (on average). The fact that some of you say MW2 was better (I skipped MW2) gives me hope though. Maybe they can get this figured out.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 1, 2011 11:53:13 GMT -5
It's never about bandwidth, it's always about ping. Ok, here's my latest results from pingtest: And from Speedtest: Both of which show that my ping is clearly under 50ms (jitter is a bit higher than I'd like, but it's not normally that high), and I have a very stable connection with perfectly good up and down speeds. There is NOTHING more I can do at my end to improve this (nor is there any problem with this side of things), so if there's a fault, then it has to be with the matchmaking and netcode, rather than my connection - or is something else at play here that I'm not aware of? Indy.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on Dec 1, 2011 12:39:39 GMT -5
It's never about bandwidth, it's always about ping. Ok, here's my latest results from pingtest: And from Speedtest: Both of which show that my ping is clearly under 50ms (jitter is a bit higher than I'd like, but it's not normally that high), and I have a very stable connection with perfectly good up and down speeds. There is NOTHING more I can do at my end to improve this (nor is there any problem with this side of things), so if there's a fault, then it has to be with the matchmaking and netcode, rather than my connection - or is something else at play here that I'm not aware of? Indy. I'm sure your connection is fine. It's bad matchmaking/netcode for sure. To clarify though, that's your ping time to the speedtest servers. It does not represent your ping time to other players. Your ping time to other players is 100% unpredictable, so we rely on them providing us good matchmaking :/
|
|
|
Post by randomguy987 on Dec 1, 2011 12:52:13 GMT -5
@indy: Honestly, it doesn't seem like a better connection necessarily improves things.
For comparison purposes, my line tests @ a steady 4/25 and my ping to servers 1200 km away (from Chicago to NYC) is a pretty dandy 34ms.
And yet, I have the same problems with MW3 that other people here have flagged: e.g., most of my gunfights are over before I'm even aware that they've started. Or a full clip will fail to kill a stationary enemy. Etc. etc.
I HAVE noticed that connections seem a lot better (or at least, the % of lobbies that don't suck seems higher) in popular game modes like TDM (100K+ players) than in the somewhat-less-popular modes like KC or Dom (40K-ish players). Of course, TDM is . . . what it is.
|
|