Pentaza
True Bro
Most kills, fewest deaths.
Posts: 304
|
Post by Pentaza on Nov 27, 2014 19:17:20 GMT -5
What I want to know is why driftor doesn't use shotguns. Because he's not a reverse-booster.  |
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Nov 27, 2014 20:04:17 GMT -5
What I want to know is why driftor doesn't use shotguns. Because he's not a reverse-booster. Secret shotgun niche. They're the fastest way to lower your SPM to get matched with noobs. Hence all shotgun users are oober try hard no lifers. |
|
Pentaza
True Bro
Most kills, fewest deaths.
Posts: 304
|
Post by Pentaza on Nov 28, 2014 19:42:36 GMT -5
It takes incredibly high standards for a game with a playerbase the size of cods to have matchmaking issues that could be attributed solely to a skill ranking. It would obviously be ridiculous to have standards so high because then they become tainted by peoples performance being affected by their connection. It is no doubt that there are connection issues. It is no doubt that SHG is aware of the connection issues. Id like to think they do see the obvious folly in how, if sbmm were causing connection issues, then the mmr itself is tainted and sbmm is itself not doing its job to begin with. I think its good to have faith that the developers would be able to see and consider at least that much. Personally I think its a safe assumption thay sbmm is not the sole (or even primary) factor for the poor networking becaise if it was a simple matter of expanding criteria, then they couldve done that in five minutes. You're making the assumptions that the SBMM is well-designed, not overly aggressive, and actually works correctly (i.e. works as they'd designed it, without any serious bugs). The fact is, none of us know any of these things. Suppose some fool decided to make SBMM work by matching only lobbies where all the players had K/D ratios with no greater than a 30% spread (best to worst in the lobby) in each of the last CoD games they played, and if one player had, say, BOII but not Ghosts and another had both BOII and Ghosts, then they can't be matched together because their stats can't be compared. And lets say that the SBMM came first in the matching rules, then the game selected based on ping thereafter. This would be utterly dumb. It would probably be dumb enough to break matchmaking on a game with a very large player base. Is this specific logic above what they've actually done? Almost certainly not. Could they conceivably do something on this level of stupidity, either by accident or design? It is absolutely within the realms of possibility. Let's face it, working on matchmaking logic is probably the most dullest of the dull things a developer working for a games studio could work on. Everyone wants to work on game engines, physics, movement, etc. You don't give matchmaking to your superstars, or even the run-of-the mill guys in your team, because they'll quickly get fed up and leave for another job. And it sounds like something simple that anyone can do. So you give it to one of your least skilled guys to do, someone you wouldn't let near the game engine. And then it gets screwed up. This is exactly how you get bugs like round losses counting as match losses in your W/L ratio. Stats gathering and tracking is another thing that is extremely dull to work on, and not the sort of thing that people signing on to a games studio want to be doing, and so something that your best or even average people don't work on. So what do you then do to fix matchmaking when it's completely broken? Well, you put your superstars on it. And they go and look at it, and they realise the whole thing has been done very badly, that the code is a complete rat's nest, is almost impossible to just patch as it is and basically needs ripping out and doing again. They shake their heads in disbelief that anyone could do it so badly. And so it then takes time to fix it. Now, if I were management at SH, and AW connections were as terrible as they are, the first thing I'd do is to have the matchmaking logic patched to remove anything non-essential that might get in the way of good connections. Even if it were only going to make a difference under specific circumstances. I'd strip it straight back to the bare bones matchmaking rules that at least attempt to match connections up as well as possible. And then I'd get that working without any additional complexity. All the SBMM and anything else (e.g. if there were rules about avoiding games in progress, rules about solo vs party, etc.) just take all that out. Get it working properly in its simplest form, and only then start adding back anything else. |
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Nov 29, 2014 23:35:00 GMT -5
It takes incredibly high standards for a game with a playerbase the size of cods to have matchmaking issues that could be attributed solely to a skill ranking. It would obviously be ridiculous to have standards so high because then they become tainted by peoples performance being affected by their connection. It is no doubt that there are connection issues. It is no doubt that SHG is aware of the connection issues. Id like to think they do see the obvious folly in how, if sbmm were causing connection issues, then the mmr itself is tainted and sbmm is itself not doing its job to begin with. I think its good to have faith that the developers would be able to see and consider at least that much. Personally I think its a safe assumption thay sbmm is not the sole (or even primary) factor for the poor networking becaise if it was a simple matter of expanding criteria, then they couldve done that in five minutes. You're making the assumptions that the SBMM is well-designed, not overly aggressive, and actually works correctly (i.e. works as they'd designed it, without any serious bugs). The fact is, none of us know any of these things. Suppose some fool decided to make SBMM work by matching only lobbies where all the players had K/D ratios with no greater than a 30% spread (best to worst in the lobby) in each of the last CoD games they played, and if one player had, say, BOII but not Ghosts and another had both BOII and Ghosts, then they can't be matched together because their stats can't be compared. And lets say that the SBMM came first in the matching rules, then the game selected based on ping thereafter. This would be utterly dumb. It would probably be dumb enough to break matchmaking on a game with a very large player base. Is this specific logic above what they've actually done? Almost certainly not. Could they conceivably do something on this level of stupidity, either by accident or design? It is absolutely within the realms of possibility. Let's face it, working on matchmaking logic is probably the most dullest of the dull things a developer working for a games studio could work on. Everyone wants to work on game engines, physics, movement, etc. You don't give matchmaking to your superstars, or even the run-of-the mill guys in your team, because they'll quickly get fed up and leave for another job. And it sounds like something simple that anyone can do. So you give it to one of your least skilled guys to do, someone you wouldn't let near the game engine. And then it gets screwed up. This is exactly how you get bugs like round losses counting as match losses in your W/L ratio. Stats gathering and tracking is another thing that is extremely dull to work on, and not the sort of thing that people signing on to a games studio want to be doing, and so something that your best or even average people don't work on. So what do you then do to fix matchmaking when it's completely broken? Well, you put your superstars on it. And they go and look at it, and they realise the whole thing has been done very badly, that the code is a complete rat's nest, is almost impossible to just patch as it is and basically needs ripping out and doing again. They shake their heads in disbelief that anyone could do it so badly. And so it then takes time to fix it. Now, if I were management at SH, and AW connections were as terrible as they are, the first thing I'd do is to have the matchmaking logic patched to remove anything non-essential that might get in the way of good connections. Even if it were only going to make a difference under specific circumstances. I'd strip it straight back to the bare bones matchmaking rules that at least attempt to match connections up as well as possible. And then I'd get that working without any additional complexity. All the SBMM and anything else (e.g. if there were rules about avoiding games in progress, rules about solo vs party, etc.) just take all that out. Get it working properly in its simplest form, and only then start adding back anything else. You're making the assumption that coding matchmaking is dull. |
|
Ill-lll
True Bro
Core is swell as well
Posts: 30
|
Post by Ill-lll on Dec 1, 2014 21:41:28 GMT -5
..and AW connections were as terrible as they are, the first thing I'd do is to have the matchmaking logic patched to remove anything non-essential that might get in the way of good connections... You're making the assumption that coding matchmaking is dull. Also, on the assumption that matchmaking has anything to do with the vast majority of code that handles the network traffic during the match itself. You can watch the handoff as soon as "Awaiting Challenge" pops up on the screen. The traffic goes elsewhere and another pile of spaghetti code, years in the making, takes over. |
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 2, 2014 3:57:27 GMT -5
It takes incredibly high standards for a game with a playerbase the size of cods to have matchmaking issues that could be attributed solely to a skill ranking. It would obviously be ridiculous to have standards so high because then they become tainted by peoples performance being affected by their connection. It is no doubt that there are connection issues. It is no doubt that SHG is aware of the connection issues. Id like to think they do see the obvious folly in how, if sbmm were causing connection issues, then the mmr itself is tainted and sbmm is itself not doing its job to begin with. I think its good to have faith that the developers would be able to see and consider at least that much. Personally I think its a safe assumption thay sbmm is not the sole (or even primary) factor for the poor networking becaise if it was a simple matter of expanding criteria, then they couldve done that in five minutes. You're making the assumptions that the SBMM is well-designed, not overly aggressive, and actually works correctly (i.e. works as they'd designed it, without any serious bugs). The fact is, none of us know any of these things. Suppose some fool decided to make SBMM work by matching only lobbies where all the players had K/D ratios with no greater than a 30% spread (best to worst in the lobby) in each of the last CoD games they played, and if one player had, say, BOII but not Ghosts and another had both BOII and Ghosts, then they can't be matched together because their stats can't be compared. And lets say that the SBMM came first in the matching rules, then the game selected based on ping thereafter. This would be utterly dumb. It would probably be dumb enough to break matchmaking on a game with a very large player base. Is this specific logic above what they've actually done? Almost certainly not. Could they conceivably do something on this level of stupidity, either by accident or design? It is absolutely within the realms of possibility. Let's face it, working on matchmaking logic is probably the most dullest of the dull things a developer working for a games studio could work on. Everyone wants to work on game engines, physics, movement, etc. You don't give matchmaking to your superstars, or even the run-of-the mill guys in your team, because they'll quickly get fed up and leave for another job. And it sounds like something simple that anyone can do. So you give it to one of your least skilled guys to do, someone you wouldn't let near the game engine. And then it gets screwed up. This is exactly how you get bugs like round losses counting as match losses in your W/L ratio. Stats gathering and tracking is another thing that is extremely dull to work on, and not the sort of thing that people signing on to a games studio want to be doing, and so something that your best or even average people don't work on. So what do you then do to fix matchmaking when it's completely broken? Well, you put your superstars on it. And they go and look at it, and they realise the whole thing has been done very badly, that the code is a complete rat's nest, is almost impossible to just patch as it is and basically needs ripping out and doing again. They shake their heads in disbelief that anyone could do it so badly. And so it then takes time to fix it. Now, if I were management at SH, and AW connections were as terrible as they are, the first thing I'd do is to have the matchmaking logic patched to remove anything non-essential that might get in the way of good connections. Even if it were only going to make a difference under specific circumstances. I'd strip it straight back to the bare bones matchmaking rules that at least attempt to match connections up as well as possible. And then I'd get that working without any additional complexity. All the SBMM and anything else (e.g. if there were rules about avoiding games in progress, rules about solo vs party, etc.) just take all that out. Get it working properly in its simplest form, and only then start adding back anything else. You're doing a lot of extrapolating on your own ideas. "Let me present a problem that I think we could be having. Now let me show how it's not totally impossible that something like this might actually happen in a world run by stupid people. Now let me propose a solution to this totally not inconceivable problem." I remember OvenBakedMuffin doing a good deal of this in some of his videos. Something about how matchmaking should just be an automated version of people selecting low ping servers. Something about developers being incompetent and how he was able to make a game in his parents' basement with better networking than CoD. Sounds great and all until you realize that it's probably not that simple, because if it were, we probably wouldn't be having these kinds of problems. |
|
Pentaza
True Bro
Most kills, fewest deaths.
Posts: 304
|
Post by Pentaza on Dec 3, 2014 18:03:43 GMT -5
You're doing a lot of extrapolating on your own ideas. "Let me present a problem that I think we could be having. Now let me show how it's not totally impossible that something like this might actually happen in a world run by stupid people. Now let me propose a solution to this totally not inconceivable problem." I remember OvenBakedMuffin doing a good deal of this in some of his videos. Something about how matchmaking should just be an automated version of people selecting low ping servers. Something about developers being incompetent and how he was able to make a game in his parents' basement with better networking than CoD. Sounds great and all until you realize that it's probably not that simple, because if it were, we probably wouldn't be having these kinds of problems. Well, I'm not stating as fact, merely putting forward that it is plausible. To have such basic matchmaking and/or connection problems in a game where the platform is mature (and where, say, 80% of the game is the same as BOII), someone has done something quite dumb. That's not necessarily a single guy who has written a bunch of bad code, it could be a poor architectural decision about some changes to the various application layers, or a poor management decision to take on changing something that was beyond the resources and capability of the team. What's most ridiculous is that it's been a month now and they haven't fixed it. For me, the game is practically unplayable. |
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Dec 13, 2014 8:45:13 GMT -5
Hello, it's recently come to our attention that the game's tickrates and netsend rates are far from optimal for this game. It's apparently widely known that the game runs at 60hz but it's tick rate is only 30hz, causing a considerable deal of laggy shenanigans even in LAN play. We have a petition going to have this issue looked into and possibly resolved and it would be awesome if we could get your commentary on this. community.callofduty.com/ideas/4690#start=50Also, would it be possible to contact Marvel4? We suspect that the tickrates are imbedded into the game code itself and would like it if he could dig through the coding and find the listed code so that we may keep the information as evidence. To my knowledge, no one is as experienced at sniffing through CoD code as Marvel so if anyone knows a quick means of contacting him we would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Dec 13, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5
The tickrate is only particularly important for the sake of being able to use a lower lerp value (in this case it's 0.1 seconds to cover two packet intervals). However, that doesn't affect hitscan weapons a great deal because lag compensation fixes things, and projectile weapons are both unweildy and few and far between. This is a quality of life change at most and wouldn't do very much to improve any networking issues. You're basically looking to make things half a second better when turning a corner. Further, we've tested different server/client tickrates in marvel's cod4 mod, and doing so screws up timers and god knows what else. They likely wouldn't bother risking breaking things and you should absolutely not expect it to be changed after a game's been released. I'd be absolutely floored if the tickrates weren't in the game code, considering the game is running off of that code and we found the numbers from looking through those directly. The server sends 20 packets/second and the client sends 30/second. if you really want the cvars its snaps 20 and cl_maxpackets 30 Sorry if my answer's not what you're looking for. You're right in that the tickrates arent in pace with the games intended speed, but thats pretty normal for most games. Optimizing the tickrates is far from the biggest lag issue the game has. Thanks for the information. Basically, that's where the majority of our gripes come from. This is a fast-paced game that's decided in mere milliseconds so that half second around the corner or literally anything else is pretty huge. This is mostly for the sake of the future of CoD, I do not expect at all that this will be adjusted in this title but I hope for it to gain enough infamy that Activision/CoD is forced to look at it more seriously. A game this fast needs more improved action fidelity, we all get extremely frustrated when silly things happen to us and it looks really bad when said said silliness happens in LAN play. I am perplexed however, you say the tickrates do not effect CoD much at all? That news is directly contradictory to all research I've done on this matter with varying topic discussions pulling from CS:GO to Battlefield 4 to Planetside 2. CS:GO is marked as the gold standard for competitive play precisely for it's high tickrates so if you could explain further, it would be most helpful. Thanks again  |
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Dec 13, 2014 14:01:58 GMT -5
Understood, thanks again for the insight. You definitely have an intimate understanding of this matter.
And yes, that's basically all we are seeking is a QoL improvement. We're getting rather sick of insta-kills and other split-second problems and are trying to mitigate them as much as possible. But like you said, most CoD players are casual and this likely won't even be addressed unless enough people step forward asking for competitive improvements.
I suspect Activision/CoD is not fully aware just how large the competitive community is. Not that we all go to tournaments or anything but that a lot of us "try-hard" and hate losing, especially to laggy shenanigans.
Thanks again for talking about this, Mousey.
Edit***
Tried to say "# Try Hard" and it auto-changed to "#smart player" O.o; wasn't expecting that.
|
|
|
|
Post by deamonomic on Dec 13, 2014 23:57:23 GMT -5
Understood, thanks again for the insight. You definitely have an intimate understanding of this matter. And yes, that's basically all we are seeking is a QoL improvement. We're getting rather sick of insta-kills and other split-second problems and are trying to mitigate them as much as possible. But like you said, most CoD players are casual and this likely won't even be addressed unless enough people step forward asking for competitive improvements. I suspect Activision/CoD is not fully aware just how large the competitive community is. Not that we all go to tournaments or anything but that a lot of us "try-hard" and hate losing, especially to laggy shenanigans. Thanks again for talking about this, Mousey. Edit*** Tried to say "# Try Hard" and it auto-changed to "#smart player" O.o; wasn't expecting that. I have to wonder, would increasing this really help with the insta-death feeling? Even without lag involved you can be killed in less then 200 MS which to many is very instant. So I have to wonder, would this make the insta-death feeling even worse? |
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 14, 2014 0:12:22 GMT -5
Understood, thanks again for the insight. You definitely have an intimate understanding of this matter. And yes, that's basically all we are seeking is a QoL improvement. We're getting rather sick of insta-kills and other split-second problems and are trying to mitigate them as much as possible. But like you said, most CoD players are casual and this likely won't even be addressed unless enough people step forward asking for competitive improvements. I suspect Activision/CoD is not fully aware just how large the competitive community is. Not that we all go to tournaments or anything but that a lot of us "try-hard" and hate losing, especially to laggy shenanigans. Thanks again for talking about this, Mousey. Edit*** Tried to say "# Try Hard" and it auto-changed to "#smart player" O.o; wasn't expecting that. I have to wonder, would increasing this really help with the insta-death feeling? Even without lag involved you can be killed in less then 200 MS which to many is very instant. So I have to wonder, would this make the insta-death feeling even worse? Help? Maybe. FIx? No. I really doubt increasing the tick rates would make it worse. |
|
|
|
Post by deamonomic on Dec 14, 2014 0:22:38 GMT -5
well the reason why I think it would is because people already cry insta-death issues (and normally blame lag) when insta-death is something that can happen regularly. If you can be killed in as little as 167 MS, then in my opinion increasing the tick rate wont help the feelings of insta-death and would make it worse. It would get worse because (and correct me if im wrong) more peoples shots would be counting. So now instead of 99% of gunfights ending with a winner and a loser (no mutual deaths), you have players regularly killing each other at the same time and this will inevitably cause MORE insta deaths to happen as you will be dieing more often period. again i might be mistaken on how this works dont know all that much |
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 14, 2014 0:39:02 GMT -5
well the reason why I think it would is because people already cry insta-death issues (and normally blame lag) when insta-death is something that can happen regularly. If you can be killed in as little as 167 MS, then in my opinion increasing the tick rate wont help the feelings of insta-death and would make it worse. It would get worse because (and correct me if im wrong) more peoples shots would be counting. So now instead of 99% of gunfights ending with a winner and a loser (no mutual deaths), you have players regularly killing each other at the same time and this will inevitably cause MORE insta deaths to happen as you will be dieing more often period. again i might be mistaken on how this works dont know all that much Hit detection is still client side and lag compensation would still use timestamps to determine who hit what and when. Theoretically, with an increase in server/client updates it might mitigate some of the packet loss by sending packets at a faster rate but it wouldn't result in a consistent shortening of ttk. |
|
|
|
Post by deamonomic on Dec 14, 2014 0:44:42 GMT -5
So even if they increase the tick rate you will still have the same situation now where there is almost always a clear winner and loser from a gunfight (one man lives the other dies). If increasing the tick rate does not help the game register more actions of the players whats the point of it? and if it is increasing the amount of actions registered then that means more of your shots would count. As a result of that you would have many situations where 2 players kill each other. And because this is now allowed to happen your overall amount of deaths/kills will go up as you are literally allowed to kill more often. So im confused about what the higher tick rate will really accomplish? if you can clarify that would be awesome |
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 14, 2014 0:55:49 GMT -5
So even if they increase the tick rate you will still have the same situation now where there is almost always a clear winner and loser from a gunfight (one man lives the other dies). If increasing the tick rate does not help the game register more actions of the players whats the point of it? and if it is increasing the amount of actions registered then that means more of your shots would count. As a result of that you would have many situations where 2 players kill each other. And because this is now allowed to happen your overall amount of deaths/kills will go up as you are literally allowed to kill more often. So im confused about what the higher tick rate will really accomplish? if you can clarify that would be awesome As far as I know it's exactly what mousey said. It would result in player positions being portrayed more accurately. This means less of an advantage to those leaving cover and less of a disadvantage to those entering it. There would be fewer "OMG i was behind the wall, how did he still kill me?" moments, and fewer "OMG I was waiting for him with my sights up and he just came around the corner and insta-destroyed me, WTF HAXX!" moments. |
|
|
|
Post by deamonomic on Dec 14, 2014 10:59:41 GMT -5
from what ive read increasing the tick rate wouldnt really help the situation much. atleast not what some are wanting it to accomplish which is why it hasnt been done. about ALL a tick rate increase would do is have you drop dead before the corner as opposed to 2 feet behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Dec 25, 2014 3:24:49 GMT -5
The muffin is back on the case for those of you that enjoy 15 minutes of monotone action:
I'm shaking my head at the results of his ping/2 vs 1 way latency test.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 25, 2014 9:14:24 GMT -5
The muffin is back on the case for those of you that enjoy 15 minutes of monotone action: I'm shaking my head at the results of his ping/2 vs 1 way latency test. That video is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve. |
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 25, 2014 14:23:00 GMT -5
All I got from the video is that Halo 3 is the best game ever.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 25, 2014 14:33:41 GMT -5
All I got from the video is that Halo 3 is the best game ever. I don't get why he compared the delay in Halo 3 with the delay in AW. Halo 3 used projectiles, and CoD uses hitscans. |
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 25, 2014 16:18:04 GMT -5
All I got from the video is that Halo 3 is the best game ever. I don't get why he compared the delay in Halo 3 with the delay in AW. Halo 3 used projectiles, and CoD uses hitscans. At the range he was testing in the video, the projectiles would have been effectively hitscan. |
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 25, 2014 18:40:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thestrategist on Dec 27, 2014 10:46:50 GMT -5
I'm reading there are ways to do it. All you need is synchronized clocks on each end and a timestamp.
The thing is it might not even be because of what he said. It may very well just be broken hit detection, period, as he even suggested in the video.
Why is this one little discrepancy so important?
|
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Dec 27, 2014 13:06:17 GMT -5
Im interested in your box of turds game. How would it work exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by thestrategist on Dec 28, 2014 11:31:28 GMT -5
Ok, here's the real question: is this hit detection problem isolated to AW or has Call of Duty been all "smoke and mirrors" this entire time?
The thing is with OBM's explanation and what I've read about it myself YOU CAN accurately determine one way ping using existing infrastructure.
In other words, there's really no excuse why this isn't functioning the way it should.
If it's true that this is a problem that has existed before it's not like an "aha! got ya!" moment or anything because all that shows is that COD is extremely outdated compared to other games at this stage and people are beginning to notice how far this game is behind the innovation curve.
You have to consider btw that not only did OBM explain that he is going to make a separate playlist on his channel explaining all the programming things you are talking about I think he realized his video needed to be "dumbed down" at least a bit for a youtube audience or fade into obscurity.
I'm sure he's going to give a more "in depth" analysis of these things later, but for the vast majority of people out there the only thing needed is awareness the problem exists.
See, maybe this entire time us COD players all tricked ourselves into thinking our kills are legit when in fact many of them are not. There are probably far more situations than people realize where when they went on that "beast" killstreak with a smg it was really just latency and bad hit detection that allowed them to sponge shitloads of bullets around the corner.
I'm honestly beginning to question myself if any of the high scores I got in the game were actually legit or not given what I saw in that video. It was a humbling experience to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by thestrategist on Dec 28, 2014 19:49:08 GMT -5
Ok, here's the real question: is this hit detection problem isolated to AW or has Call of Duty been all "smoke and mirrors" this entire time? It depends on what you mean. There are a lot of aspects of lag that are fundamentally impossible to eliminate; specifically latency, packet loss, and jitter. All of those are dependent on the infrastructure of whatever you live. Developers are usually responsible for two things: controlling how laggy the game looks and sorting players to minimize pings. The former is done through antilag methods such as lag compensation, interpolation, and prediction as I went over the OP of this thread. There's nothing to suggest that any of those have changed in any of the games since cod4. The latter is based on matchmaking. Since high ping effectively makes all latency issues more significant, then poor matchmaking will yield noticeably bad connection issues. There isn't explicit proof that matchmaking has changed in recent times, but its certainly possible. Yeah. It is worth remembering though that cod has been perpetually modded since cod2, and afaik the last major changes to networking mechanics were in cod4 and mw2 (according to ex IW dev Slothy who now works at Respawn). There are A LOT of things that CoD does that are outdated, but they probably don't have the chance/time to fix because of them being annualized and having a rather strict management/development cycle. That whole "new engine" shit they keep saying is nothing more than a buzzword because there isnt a chance in hell that they'd have the opportunity to actually make a new one. Honestly I really wouldn't expect much from them at this point. They haven't given much of an actual shit for community complaints in years; just the occasional massive outcry that may affect sales. They don't have much reason to care since a lot of their critics buy the game every year anyway. It's a huge, annualized cash cow and they dont even put effort into making it seem like they care. Titanfall, Halo, or CS:GO. /thread |
|
|
|
Post by thestrategist on Dec 29, 2014 9:11:34 GMT -5
I don't know what you're really getting at but they all have their issues. CS:GO was a fu cking joke upon release. People literally found it easier to set up matches via IRC rather than use the matchmaking until valve revamped it like three months after release. Even then it took several more months for it to be the dominant CS installment. My point is though that with cod, while its not impossible, it is a significant amount of work; and being an annualized franchise they likely have deadlines stricter than most other games. On top of that, they have no motivation to seriously improve stuff when 90% of everyone who bit ches about the game buys it every year anyway. Flashy campaigns, new perks, and super cool new guns are way easier for marketting. Bucket said it in the other thread: you vote with your wallet. I can all but guarantee that IW/3arc/SHG doesnt give two shits about you personally. If CoD has reached a point where you see no point in playing it over some other games, then do what I do and play those instead. I don't think a ton of people will follow suit, but I agree. It's really time to just get over the nostalgia and move on. Personally, I've just been playing Titanfall for the past few weeks, but I'm thinking of really giving all these other games a serious shot. Just look at how many people watch CS:GO on twitch and that game is how old now? |
|
r
Bro
Posts: 6 
|
Post by r on Dec 29, 2014 13:25:20 GMT -5
Yes you need a synchronized clock but the issue is actually getting one. You cant do that over the internet because the latency between any neutral clock and the clients are subject to the same desync issues that exist between client and server. You can't connect them without a GPS or some other external hardware. It's not important in that it solves anything. I dont care if they release a box of turds and call it a game. I'm just interested in the subject matter and how it works. Clock sync over the internet can be more than precise enough for online games, with the right correction algorithm. tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2010papers/paper6.pdfIn this experiment, sync performance of 32.5μs +/- 9.58μs was achieved between Austria and Australia using a standard IEEE sync protocol. |
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Dec 29, 2014 16:10:05 GMT -5
People have fallen into the thoughts like this..."there were so many lag compensation complaints with this current game, that they will definitely fix it this time around." And then they run out on launch day and buy the game, only to be disappointed, once again. Pull your head out of your ass. Its not going to change if you keep buying it.
I'm sure the devs can see the "time played" stat falling drastically (community wide) and maybe they can predict that something has to give before that trend picks up drastically, but who knows? I'd love to have a conversation with an insider that could tell me what the fuck is really going on. Do the devs voice customer concerns to Activision and get shot down? Do they not know? Do they know and not care? Is it Activision? Is it ineptitude? Or is it really just all about the $$?
|
|
