oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Aug 7, 2013 0:46:50 GMT -5
Another question, what exactly are the developers tweaking, if anything, in relation to the networking of the game code as specified in the MW3 patch notes (http://community.callofduty.com/message/106065898):
TU5: Further improvements for hitching and addressing lag in gameplay.
TU6: Additional improvements to address lag.
TU7: Improvement to address "Host Disadvantage" / "Lag Compensation" that caused hosts with good connections to be hindered.
TU8: Networking enhancements, Theater improvements and fixes, Further improvements to "Host Disadvantage" / "Lag Comp"
TU9/10 PS3:
Host migration update.
Anti lag balance adjustment for 1/2 bar connections vs. 3/4 bar connections
TU11:
(Xbox) Anti lag balance adjustment for 1/2 bar connections vs. 3/4 bar connections
Additional anti-lag tuning
Host migration threshold tuned further
TU14 (PS3):
Change to match making where region searched is determined by party host.
TU15 (Xbox):
Change to match making where region searched is determined by party host.
Most notably, what are they referring to when they say "anti lag balance" and improving "Host Disadvantage"? I assume the host disadvantage is the artificial delay you talk about below the interpolation section of your post?
I also noticed that in the Black Ops 2 patch notes they never mentioned any adjustment of anything related to lag or matchmaking. Do you think that's because they haven't changed BO2's networking code at all or they just don't reveal that information to the public because it only causes more complaints and problems?
|
|
oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Aug 7, 2013 18:10:45 GMT -5
Now I know that you contribute a lot of the perceived difference in networking between the older Call of Duty games and the new ones to the lack of stopping power / juggernaut in the game. With stopping power you typically were able to kill someone in one less bullet and with juggernaut you were typically able to absorb one more bullet, although that's not exactly how it works.
Now just brainstorming for a second here, but removing these 2 perks essentially buffed one hit kill weapons like shotguns & sniper rifles correct? Since there is no way to absorb more than 1 shot from a well placed sniper / shotgun shot you can lose gun fights with someone like this even if you hit them 3-4 times before they pull the trigger. I assume that Stopping Power / Jugg were removed from the game because of how significantly better they were as a perk than any of the other perks within their respective tiers. Do you think there is a way to bring those perks back to give the game a better "feel" in regards to connection and gun fights? What about an alternate solution? Is there a way that you can implement a counter to one shot kill weapons without making the perk like juggernaut overpowered? What if you significantly nerfed all weapons or gave all player body armor so that players have more health overall? This would lead to a more Halo-esque game of requiring a player to break someone's shield/body armor before getting a kill and it also makes headshots & aiming more relevant rather than connection/reaction speed as putting shots on target is more important than spamming bullets around a corner / through a wall.
Also, I am curious if the speed of the game in Black Ops 2 contributes to the perceived networking differences between old COD's and the new ones. For example, light weight + knifing + extreme conditioning can make your character run very fast for quite a significant distance. Because you are running faster than average you are covering more distance on the map per update to and from the host, which means that you get more and more out of sync with the host the faster you run (and the higher your latency is). This can lead to some very commando-like instances where a player appears to run 10 feet through your bullets and knife you for the insta-kill.
Do you think slowing the movement speed down globally within the game would improve the perceived lag at all? For example if everyone ran at LMG speed by default, wouldn't you experience less instances of being knifed as they run through your bullets? Less instances of running around a corner of a wall only to die once you were behind cover? Less connection discrepancies since you would cover less ground per update?
I know it's not a "solution" per se but I'm just trying to think outside of the box on ways that one could potentially make the game "feel" better.
|
|
oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Aug 15, 2013 21:13:11 GMT -5
It's interesting because today I was watching some old recorded footage I had from before MW3 officially came out and there is one game in particular where I was given host against some international players. Everyone on our team was a 4 bar and everyone on the enemy team was a 1-2 bar so they had to be pretty far from the US and during that game I would literally die before I even saw the enemy shooting their weapon. The only thing I can think of is there had to have been artificial delay being added in that instance because it was pretty ridiculous how bad some of the deaths were. This only happened when I pulled host, all other instances even when I was 4 barring against international players didn't showcase this behavior.
I compared that game to some gameplay where I pulled host later in the year after several title updates and the difference was night and day. I know that is just based off of personal experience and comparing the recorded footage but to me it's clear that some change must have been made.
I'm glad they are at least trying to improve the networking experience although I don't think adding artificial latency to the host is a solution of "balance" but alas, here is to hoping that when they were tweaking the game engine for Ghosts they made some improvements to the networking code as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Aug 16, 2013 8:30:47 GMT -5
What we "know" is as only good as what they tell us. They are either lying how it works or they don't know how it works or what they attempted to code was not implemented properly. Whatever they changed with the connection in the games post MW2 broke the connection. Its blatantly obvious if you spend a few hours playing the newer CODSs compared to the older ones, let alone thousands of hours playing them.
I know you like to say that its impossible to "feel" a difference, but its very possible. Play enough and you know how things are supposed to go down. You can tell outplayed from bullshit. You can tell if you missed your shots. You can tell that you died in a time where it was completely impossible to react before death. Then this happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, on different days, in different lobbies...and then you know that its the game that is broken. Contrary to whatever bullshit the developers try and say.
|
|
oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Aug 20, 2013 3:19:13 GMT -5
There's honestly just a very good chance that they got the drop on you but the latency issues made it appear like they killed you right after you saw them. Cod has always had a ping added onto host, even in cod4. IIRC it was only present when a number of players had high ping, and it adds the average ping of all players onto the host. Can't remember where I read that though so take it with a grain of salt. But I'm comparing two very similar gameplays recorded at different times in the game's life cycle. Both games are when I pulled host playing against players with high latency (most 1-2 bars). In the first game before launch I get no visual representation that I'm taking damage. I will be shooting at the target and then just drop dead. In the latter video I will shoot and the player dies, I couldn't find any BS example where I just die without any damage visualization. I wish I could see their perspective of what they saw locally on their Xbox360, that would add some missing pieces to the puzzle so to speak. What we "know" is as only good as what they tell us. They are either lying how it works or they don't know how it works or what they attempted to code was not implemented properly. Whatever they changed with the connection in the games post MW2 broke the connection. Its blatantly obvious if you spend a few hours playing the newer CODSs compared to the older ones, let alone thousands of hours playing them. I know you like to say that its impossible to "feel" a difference, but its very possible. Play enough and you know how things are supposed to go down. You can tell outplayed from bullshit. You can tell if you missed your shots. You can tell that you died in a time where it was completely impossible to react before death. Then this happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, on different days, in different lobbies...and then you know that its the game that is broken. Contrary to whatever bullshit the developers try and say. A lot of people say MW2 had the best hit detection, I would be interested in knowing the changes that happened from COD4 to current COD iterations. Ghosts is removing theater mode from the game and a lot of people are saying this will "fix" the networking issues in Call of Duty. I highly doubt that removing theater mode will contribute that much as I'm pretty sure all of the theater mode information is sent to the servers from the host Xbox after the game is finished and should have very little influence on the game play itself but who knows, maybe it will fix everything. |
|
|
|
Post by pupilofcod on Aug 20, 2013 15:18:55 GMT -5
And the big 400 lb gorilla in the room is that mw2 was the last cod to not use activisions listen severs hosted in Ireland. Activision has been using those since the acquisition of demonware. And they now use them for cod 4 as well. Every time I sniff my connection, I watch the trace leave NY and go overseas to come back for a match in the US. And it's not just match making....when blops1/2 analyze your connection at start up that goes to Ireland too. Mw2 finds host based on mechanisms in xbl so the connection trace always stays in the US.
|
|
oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Aug 20, 2013 15:55:45 GMT -5
No Theatre + now the announcement of dedicated servers on XB1. I know dedicated servers doesn't solve the majority of these issues and they already exist on PC but for console players that's a huge step forward. No more dashboarding to end games and more consistent connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupilofcod on Aug 20, 2013 16:06:12 GMT -5
I'm a fan of dedicated servers, but they still depend on good net code, scalability, load balancing, etc. somehow year after year new cod releases seem to underestimate load and things can go wrong fast. I don't know if u remember the bf3 launch...dedicated servers were great as long as you wanted to lose ur party, teammates, every match. I'm just hoping they start to get this stuff right the first time...treat it like surface Rt and build out more hardware then u actually need lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Aug 21, 2013 10:52:06 GMT -5
Our listen servers are in Ireland? Hahaha, holy shit. Activision dipping their rod in glass shards and jamming it in all of our asses. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindfire2 on Aug 22, 2013 13:07:53 GMT -5
So, I've been playing BO2 on PC, I've been playing on Xbox since CoD2, but nearly a year now have I bought a decent gaming computer that runs the game on High/1080p at 115-120 FPS. I still lag on the game, MW3 "lag comp", what ever its called, there is something there that puts other screens on a higher ping at a higher priority (I know that's not how it works, but lets just go with that for now as I hope to get some kind of answers). I usually play on servers where I have 38-62 ping (min/max that I've noted)and a lot of kill cams that I see where my aim isn't off, I'm not lagging/dropping frames, and not caught out by doing something stupid, someone on 80+ is ahead. The higher the ping, the more MS they are ahead by. I decided, "Well, my internet could just suck and my bandwidth might not be good.". So I upgraded my modem to a pretty good Motorola, and I noticed a difference in speed. No change on the game. So I upgraded from a 29-32 Mb/s Down 1.4-1.7 Mb/s up to a 58-64 Mb/s Down 12 Mb/s up. The game got worse. So, I've been trying my best to figure out how lag compensation works, and I understand the game NEEDS it to run as smooth as it does. I started playing with Germans and usually play between 160-220 ping. Huge difference! (most of the time). There are times, though, where I get beat by someone on 40 ping (how the game should work) but wonder why I rarely beat people on 100+ ping in a 1v1 "fair" gun fight. Is there anything else I can possibly try where I can play on 40 ping and not die before turning a corner. I've been thinking about upgrading my router, though I don't have the money at the moment to upgrade. Sorry for the long essay, but I've put in a lot of time and money to play one of my favorite series, and have to deal with this or find another game until Titanfall comes out.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295 
|
Post by Den on Aug 22, 2013 14:33:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by blindfire2 on Aug 22, 2013 15:20:20 GMT -5
um yes den? thats been posted quite a few times already. Yeah that would be my fault for being lazy and just going to the end instead of actually reading everything. So basically from all of this, it's just a broken game. I need to either suck it up, or go find something else to play. Only about 8 months until Titanfall. Thanks for the reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Nintendon't on Oct 26, 2013 22:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Oct 26, 2013 23:18:23 GMT -5
Mouse is right, what that guy is saying comes from basic knowledge of internet connectivity. The kind of understanding you get from realizing that it isn't "magic" that makes connections work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nintendon't on Oct 26, 2013 23:56:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Oct 28, 2013 4:53:34 GMT -5
Seeeeriously don't think it's a developer. He's just saying really basic stuff. I mean unless hes just doing it for the sake of getting people to chill out but the cod community has made it pretty clear that if they could use it as an excuse, they'd blame the fu cking horoscope for failure anyway. And really: 1. there's no reason that the theater mode file should be done real time during a game instead of after a game 2. cod uses really low bandwith to begin with and the replay file is literally a log of the game anyway; and has no reason to be a lot of data anyway 3. theyve been using killcams since cod4 and that never blew up peoples connection. I'm pretty sure killcams have been around since the original COD. Anyway, it always seemed to me that Treyarch theater mode stuff indeed got uploaded after the match, seemed like server dashboards didn't pop up at all in theater mode. Though I guess they could always just drop any theater stuff that doesn't properly complete, so that's not exactly proof. On the other hand with IW theater mode I was under the impression you were recording the game locally, so theater mode wouldn't have any direct effects on the networking at all. |
|
|
|
Post by otisman666 on Dec 9, 2013 15:48:10 GMT -5
Well I thought I would put this in here. The COD:Ghosts version of the OBM connections video is up on youtube. I don't pretend to understand what he is saying here, but some of you chip heads might be interested:
|
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Dec 9, 2013 19:58:25 GMT -5
ah you just beat me to it.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Dec 17, 2013 9:14:50 GMT -5
OMG dat voice....
|
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Dec 27, 2013 11:06:34 GMT -5
the above video link didn't work for me.
Not sure where to put this information, so I thought this thread would work as well as any. If anyone out there has purchased an XBox One, there is one piece of very interesting information that the XBox one now shows, that the 360 doesn't. This is your connection speed. On the 360, at the dashboard, when you go to your network setting, it just showd a graphical/illustration type of thing that you are 'connected'. On the XBox one, it actually shows what your actual connection is, down to the millisecond.
(btw, i got a XBoxOne for a xmas gift)
Anyways, I did some brief testing of this. I have always used a land-based direct line into my XBox 360. Did this because I couldn't get my Verizon Fios router to recognize the 360. No problems, I just ran a line through a wall, under a baseboard, and into the back of my 360. I have seemed to always have a good connection, by what I could gather playing with friends over the years. How? I never got one of those messages (you can't host, due to the strenght of the connection). So all was good I suppose.
So I did some testing on my XBoxOne to see what the above actual numbers were. Both with the same direct line plugged into it, and the connection via the wireless device on the XBoxOne, which connected with no problem whatsoever to my Verizon Fios Router. Nice to see that working. It was a bit surprising.
First. I have Verizon Fios. I upgraded from the 15/5 triple play plan, and got the 50/25 package a while ago.
XBox One tests. Direct line. When i ran the Dashboard > Network Settings > Internet connection, ....the numbers I suppose were decent? It showed an upload/download of 45Mbps/38Mbps, and a 81ms connection. The 81 was pretty alarming. I think? I have nothing to compare it too. But then when i ran the wireless, i was shocked. The numbers dropped down to 14Mbps/8mpg, which was god awful. And the connection came in at a whopping 169ms. Good lord.
It seems like 81 and especially 169 are high.
Now, I also noticed that both tests were run when my connection showed a 'Moderate'. That might be the cause of those numbers being high? Or are they just normal? I didn't have enough time to test, as I didn't know how to switch it the settings on the XBoxOne. The 360 was easy, just go back to factory default settings, done. Took like 2 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupilofcod on Dec 27, 2013 20:26:37 GMT -5
I have fios also, for the package you have the upload and download speeds are fine actually you're get a fair bit above your rated upload speed which is never a bad thing. The ping part it's tricky though since it's tough to find what server you're pinging in the xbox verse. 81 Ms to your neighbor would be bad, but to a server 400 miles away that could be decent. Regarding your nat, it's moderate most likely because you still have the 360 on your network or upnp isn't acting right on the actiontech router. If you did port forwarding before for 360, then you need to hard code that IP for your xb1 and never use then together, or create network objects in your router and port forward both the IP for 360 and xb1. The nat setting will probably not affect your ping, just the ability for other xb1 to connect to your host. Oh and yeah depending on which router you have, the signal strength, interference, and wifi saturation from other sources you can definitely see your bandwidth and ping fluctuate wildly. That's why it's almost always best to hard wire your connection if you care about game experience online.
|
|
|
|
Post by starbuck on Jan 5, 2014 0:35:07 GMT -5
Mousey, Hopefully you are still reading and hope fully you can answer this question. Now first of all for that pretty well written out wall of text. Formatting was great and the pictures were cool. QUOTE from page 1 section 3.1 In this scenario, you are tactical loitering. Enemy comes around the corner and starts shooting you. On your end of the spectrum, he hasn't come around the corner yet. Basically, he sees you before you see him simply because he is moving into the room and you're already there. Once again, hit detection favors the attacker in this engagement; and once again, the significance is a result of the two players' combined latencies. When playing, especially on a poor connection, it's important to remember that you can manipulate this fault in networking to your advantage. However it's not consistent or reliable so it's not some be-all end-all trick either. ENDQUOTE So does that mean in COD games that players now get punished for having better connections because the slower laggier connection is favored in this case ? Or at least that is the way I am reading it. I had a stroke recently so some of my technical knowledge has gone bye-bye. So if you could please use smaller words  Also has COD always used rewind time in all of their games (except for number 1 I believe.) ? In your opinion do you feel the netcode has changed or is it just peoples perception that each years COD "Is the laggiest game yet" ? And if you go back to MW2 (for example) is the lag comp (hitmarkers, etc) in that game perfect compared to the present game. I am trying to keep my brain working during this difficult time. Thanks a lot in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by starbuck on Jan 5, 2014 20:30:16 GMT -5
Thanks for an honest answer. Makes sense.
So now if they were BOTH running up to the corner and bumped into each other ? then what ? Assuming the same 50 and 250 pings ?
And I really do appreciate the fast detailed responses.
|
|
Ill-lll
True Bro
Core is swell as well
Posts: 30
|
Post by Ill-lll on Jan 9, 2014 10:54:24 GMT -5
Any comments on host disadvantage in Ghosts?
Backstory: Starting in MW2, the host of the game has been given an artificial delay to be used for factoring the combined latency calculations, whatever the math is, so they aren't able to run around destroying everyone as easily. Over iterations, this got worse. MW2's really only reared it's head when everyone in the lobby had 4 bars/under 50ms ping. The host would be at a disadvantage because this artificial delay would be greater than the latency of the connected clients. In your average 2-3 bar lobby, the host still had it good. In BO1 it really became a problem because it was no longer a static number, but somehow variable and averaged out amongst the whole lobby. We had a decent (several hundred pages) thread going on the official BO1 forums but it appears long gone with a lot of the other threads of that era. MW3 did it a bit differently but still there. BO2 started making improvements.
Now: This week, I've fallen into the category that I've read long posts from several times over the releases - started on crap internet and upgraded to a better package (10x1 to 50x5). Ghosts is the first game I've had "bad" internet to start (recently moved), before it was always just decent package and a single connection experience to go on.
I'm noticing that it appears I'm getting host more frequently now (game loads, I'm the first name in and get spammed with 'every other player's name Connected' after. I'm trying to confirm this and the unsurprising lack of dedi's with the connections monitor utilities in my router but the custom tomato I'm running doesn't have much aside from a list of connections, filterable by IP. PS4 is static, so I'm trying to manually refresh and eyeball how the connections work but I'm going to need different firmware to really track this accurately.
Whenever I am hosting, it feels like the old anti-lag is back in place. On the 10x1, I almost never had problems on the offense as stated in the posts above. Run around a corner and usually could start firing and kill before the enemy had time to react, but often had the issue of running around a corner and then dying up to 500ms later from phantom bullets shooting me in the back before making it to cover, most likely from the upstream latency. Now on the 50x5, the opposite is true any time I start a new game with XXXX connected spam. If I run around a corner, I usually die instantly from a model that appears to be sprinting and displays no stop+aim animation. In the untrustable killcam I notice the enemy sees me come around the corner, stops sprinting, ADS's, and fires while on their screen it looks like I just run right at them without trying to fight, stuck on stupid.
One positive I notice is that games I am not the host, the deaths after running around corners from phantom bullets shooting in the back have not happened (yet). This was a nearly every match problem, so I feel the higher upstream is helping me when not host.
This is only 4 days of experience, so it is too early for me to make anything more than observation. However, the change was noticeable from the first night forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by warlord on Jan 12, 2014 19:17:36 GMT -5
If I run around a corner, I usually die instantly from a model that appears to be sprinting and displays no stop+aim animation. In the untrustable killcam I notice the enemy sees me come around the corner, stops sprinting, ADS's, and fires while on their screen it looks like I just run right at them without trying to fight, stuck on stupid. I have this exact experience. However, not in the beginning, only since December 20th up until now. It changed over night with no changes to my configuration. (PS3) After much reflashing of routers, tweaking and research, i stumbled upon 'Pre and Post RS Errors' on my modems downstream status page. A few are apparently normal but i was accumulating 300+ in the space of 20mins. Pre errors are fixed somehow but post errors result in lost data. So i contacted my ISP and after telling them about these errors i was told that there is a high utilization 'fault' in my area and that packet loss is a typical symptom. However, i had contacted them the week prior, after the 'change' in my experience and was told there were no faults. From previous experience i have no trust in my ISP. After more research i discovered that they may be messing with UDP traffic somehow, especially during periods of high utilization. I don't know if UDP packet loss is the issue and i don't know who to blame, but i might find out after the so called fault is repaired. I have a 30/3 conneciton with a 10ms ping to my nearest server with 1-2ms of jitter. After you mentioned being connected first in the lobby, i realise now that im always host if this is indeed the case and not experienced by all players in the lobby. Before the fault, adding latency to my connection gave me a highly enjoyable playing experience. Now, it doesn't matter what i do - encrypt PS3 traffic to hide UDP from my ISP, add latency, throttle my up/down bandwidth, i am stuck with the experience you mention. It feels like i am being one-shot all the time, i have to check if it was a sniper rifle. As you mention, im not seeing the stop+aim animation and i appear to be walking into players not firing as if i didn't see them. I mean, alot of these players have a 0. kdr and a really messy aim, let alone reflex. I can even see players appear to react to the speed at which i drop, doing a double take or stopping in their tracks. There are also situations where the player has killed a team-mate and myself standing next to each other, i die rapidly but the team-mate takes some time. Btw, sometimes i can kill really fast (if they haven't engaged with me, at which point i die rapidly) but sometimes it takes me 3/4 of a clip and i still die rapidly. Is this not data loss ? My experience prior to the fault was improved by increasing latency but i saw the stop+aim animation and i didn't appear to be walking blindly without firing. Sigh, this flipping game  Edit : According to that OBD video, Ghosts prioritises locality in matchmaking ? If that is the case then, will using a proxy affect my matchmaking ? I know that entering a proxy into the PS3 only affects ports 80 and 443, are they used for matchmaking ? Update : Promised repair date has past, no change. My ISP are bullshitting me. I have been running PingPlotter to IPs shown in my router log which are used by COD Ghosts and lo and behold, there is packet loss at certain hops, some are my ISPs servers, some are where the ISP network joins another and some are on other networks. Not every IP route shows packet loss, but out of every game 70% of the connections used have some packet loss along the way. Thing is, i tried COD4, MW2 and BO and it just works. Sure there are some hit detection issues versus long distance players, but nothing like the issues in Ghosts. The other thing is, i came across this lobby which seemed to be hosted by the same player throughout and when i was on his team, i had a field day. TDM scores like 32-0, 47-4, etc constantly. I had no issues. Then when i was swapped to the oppposing side i found it very difficult and was back to dieing fast. For 14 games, it was the same group of players and this pattern of winning and losing depending on which side i was on repeated. Its worth noting this host had a kdr of 3.4. I am sure that i was experiencing very little packet loss on the hops used when playing with him, you can be sure i added him to my friends list in order to play more of the same !! When that lobby closed, it was back to the same bullshit. Im a walking free kill. |
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Nov 25, 2014 15:42:33 GMT -5
And the big 400 lb gorilla in the room is that mw2 was the last cod to not use activisions listen severs hosted in Ireland. Activision has been using those since the acquisition of demonware. And they now use them for cod 4 as well. Every time I sniff my connection, I watch the trace leave NY and go overseas to come back for a match in the US. And it's not just match making....when blops1/2 analyze your connection at start up that goes to Ireland too. Mw2 finds host based on mechanisms in xbl so the connection trace always stays in the US. This post I quoted seems to be the answer to everything. I guess players in Dublin have it made. Activision blows. |
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Nov 25, 2014 16:16:39 GMT -5
Aw, come on.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Nov 27, 2014 17:22:23 GMT -5
Wait he actually made a SBMM video? He didn't even know what that was until I took him about it a week ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Nov 27, 2014 18:06:27 GMT -5
What I want to know is why driftor doesn't use shotguns.
|
|
Pentaza
True Bro
Most kills, fewest deaths.
Posts: 304
|
Post by Pentaza on Nov 27, 2014 19:16:30 GMT -5
Wait he actually made a SBMM video? He didn't even know what that was until I took him about it a week ago. The facts presented are quite interesting. There seem to be quite a few parameters going into the SBMM, even looking back at your "skill" (we still don't know what that means) in the last two CoD games. I think the conclusions are a bit far-fetched, though. Drift0r says, quite rightly, that there may be a number of other reasons for shoddy matchmaking and ridiculous connections, but then uses that as a reason to say that SBMM isn't a leading factor. We just don't know whether it is or is not a primary factor in the sh*tty connections. Drift0r says he's not personally having connection problems but, then, he's probably not exactly a beast at CoD, either, from what I've seen of his gameplay. So he's not off to the side of the bell curve (assuming that's how it works) in skill and thus less likely to be affected. So we have more information (which is definitely a good thing), but we still don't know. I'm a bit worried that SH don't know, either. |
|
