Lower ping?

[Holy.Death]

Everyone enjoys hard evidence, except for when they see that their empirical methods are producing data that are either unreliable or extremely skewed, or just flat out wrong concerning what they are trying to prove/disprove. I have neither the time, desire or tools necessary to prove my theory, but I am completely justified in having an opinion on the matter [...]

I am saying nothing about you not being allowed to have an opinion on the matter. I contest how you state your opinion though, making it sound like it's a fact when it's not proven right or wrong.

Some people take things blindly on authority and believe that certain "solutions" are infallible. These are not the actions of intelligent or rational people IMO. When, concerning data, practical experience proves otherwise, backed by hard evidence, or not -- it is completely permissible to question those things.

What we have here right now is just a bunch of people who have contradicting experiences and who have theories instead of actual facts. In such situation I'll state my personal experience above someone else's experience and/or theory/opinion.

Don't ask me to take your opinion at face value when there is no evidence to back up what you're saying and my in-game experience is different than what you (and the OP) experience. If you'll have proof of your claims and post them in a manner that I'd understand then I'll reconsider.

I've said more than my piece on the issue and I am done. I do not believe that the anti-lag mutator sets all pings as equal and that now latency has no affect on the game.

If there is a problem then it might be somewhere else. I am no internet-specialist nor I know how to deal with technology so I'll be of little help here. I can only say that I don't experience what you experience. Maybe it's just me or maybe it's you or we both are right and something else is interrupting the way how the game is played.

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by TraXx

No, it was not set down as far as 0ms unless you're already talking about coming from the negative side. The values were negative values trying to offset latency, much like in bc2 -- but I've really become tired of this argument and am completely content to let you believe what you believe.

You have one thing right: cl_timenudge is typically a negative value. That value then adjusts the rendering delay between when the game receives a snapshot and when it renders it. Normally this is 50ms, so at cl_timenudge -50, the delay is 0ms (Or, in other words, cl_timenudge adjusts the rendering delay down as far as 0ms. I didn't think I needed to spell out every step of the procedure...). Think about it; if it was adjusting for latency, then the more typical values of -10 to -15 would do practically nothing. In either case, it still has nothing to do with client-side hit-detection.

It doesn't compensate for lag so much as it just renders things earlier. This can help a little by reducing the sum of all delays, but it can not un-do the actual delay between when the server sends the information and when the client receives it. The only delay it adjusts is the rendering delay on the client.

And this information is easily found in any of the many discussions of cl_timenudge that google will find you.

No, just like fps numbers do not translate 1:1 to actual perceived frame lag, I do not believe that what is reported as 50ms is actually 50ms -- if that were the case latency would be a non-factor, absolutely agreed.

You can believe whatever you like, but the 50ms reported is 50ms. We can confirm that through many different methods, including plain-old "ping" commands from a DOS prompt. In fact, RO2's reporting is more accurate because it includes the delay for the game's tick-rate as well.

For that matter, simple common sense makes it clear that 50ms isn't half a second. If that were so, the "playable" 100ms group would be playing with a full second of lag, and the times I play on the UK server with 200ms latency would be two seconds of lag. That's blatantly untrue, and I'd challenge you to find any evidence at all that it isn't.

50ms latency is 50ms, and yes, it's largely a non-factor.

[TraXx]

Originally Posted by PhoenixDragon

...

No.

Googlestars of the world, unite! \o/

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by TraXx

No.

Uh-huh. Screw facts, then?

Almost all the technical details you've provided are simply wrong, particularly about how they relate to RO2's networking model.

[dasopm]

you are so smart. why are you not working for TWI?

[TraXx]

Originally Posted by PhoenixDragon

Uh-huh. Screw facts, then?

Almost all the technical details you've provided are simply wrong, particularly about how they relate to RO2's networking model.

No.

[Cwivey]

I've played with 160 ping on many an occaision, for me there is no noticable difference in shooting at someone compared to if I was on my fav server playing with 40 ping. Only in the most exceptional circumstances where me and my intended target fire at the same time do innconsistencies occur, and that's more to do with how bullets stop being registered after death rather than ping I beleive.


TraXx, got anything to back up that "No"? :x

[TraXx]

Originally Posted by Cwivey

I've played with 160 ping on many an occaision, for me there is no noticable difference in shooting at someone compared to if I was on my fav server playing with 40 ping. Only in the most exceptional circumstances where me and my intended target fire at the same time do innconsistencies occur, and that's more to do with how bullets stop being registered after death rather than ping I beleive.


TraXx, got anything to back up that "No"? :x

Not any more or less than you do...

My experiences are counter to yours.

[Holy.Death]

I suggest to stop short, meaningless posts like "No". They add nothing to the topic and are considered spam. Speak in detail or don't post at all.

[TraXx]

Originally Posted by Holy.Death

I suggest to stop short, meaningless posts like "No". They add nothing to the topic and are considered spam. Speak in detail or don't post at all.

That's extremely hypocritical. I know no one is perfect, including administrators and moderators, but there are many posts in this thread, let alone these boards, that actually go into some detail about something completely off topic. I would see those as much more damaging that saying "no" -- which, while short, still conveys a feeling or thought.

I mean, really, would you rather someone says -- No, I don't agree with you. I don't agree that what you think is fact is actually valid. No, I don't agree with people regurgitating things they think are fact just because there were a myriad of google links regarding it. No, I don't think that being argumentative for argument's sake does anyone any good.

I mean really, come on. Someone has posted something -- I don't agree with it at ALL. I don't have the time to elaborate so to convey this I say -- NO.

It's a discussion forum. If you don't have time to elaborate then post when you'll find time to post something more substantial than a short spam. Sometimes short messages can be enough and aren't considered spam, but not in this case. It's totally uninformative. You also don't discuss or question moderator's decision in public. If you want to do it you can use a PM but ignoring the rules won't get you very far - Holy.Death.

So to bring this back to topic -- once again, I don't agree that latency does not have any affect on gameplay because of the advent of the antilag mutator. I think that it does a good job of allowing people to aim at targets without having to lead so that they see things more appropriately, but I do not believe that those corrections also apply to the other effects of latency, especially when the client is inherently lagged.

You are never going to be able to stop the fact that a latency difference between two clients means that one receives and sends information faster/slower than another.

In fact, with the bullets now cutting off at death, it's quite possible that the mutator actually HURTS those with higher latency more than it helps. You fired the shot on your screen, but the server never saw it because you were already dead as far as the server was concerned. Where is my client-side hit detection when THAT happens? Oh wait, it's not there because we didn't want too many double kills. Well great, you just totally negated elements of gameplay that would have changed the outcome of a firefight.

And guess, what -- when people come in here complaining about the hit-registration, and/or they have fraps of them hitting kill shots that anyone can clearly see should be kill shots, but are not -- and then on top of that frustration, like the OP had, the best responses he gets tell him that he can't aim, but you are the world's savior because you have nothing better to do than look up things on google and pretend that you have all of the answers -- THAT, is what turns them away.

So good luck with your crusades, PhoenixDragon -- all you really serve to do is weaken the community.

The people that I care to surround myself with already know of the efforts of the segment of the community we help to cultivate and enjoy spending time with. My effort is much better spent there than dealing with the likes of you.

Flame-on, C-SPAN.

[TheRealGunther]

While I was one of the first to say this game is totally playable with a 200 ping.Regardless of the numbers you can tell a difference between a 50 pin and a 150.At range its almost a non factor you learn to adjust your timing and your just as accurate.In CQB you will have more times to where it seems your gun just has a slower response or you die first and shots vanish,hitboxes etc.We are talking mil secs here

In clan vs clan its enough of a difference that most request server swap so each play with a low ping.We talking 6v6 of fairly equally skilled players sometimes a mil sec will get you killed.In a snap type ADS encounter the guy with the higher ping just has to be a tad faster.Small things like firing the smg before you round the corner on a known position can help.Most just adjust and can still do really good.

Over all this game does really great with a crazy high ping.Allowing players from around the world to play and not having no "Major" disadvantages.I'm not arguing numbers here i'm talking about what you can "Feel". Even tho its "Almost" unnoticeable it is there ask anyone who plays with a high ping.If they say no then they just don't know what a good ping feels like in the game.

Sensemann "How did I not kill you there ?"
Chosen-1 " I'm not living in China"

[TraXx]

Originally Posted by TheRealGunther

While I was one of the first to say this game is totally playable with a 200 ping.Regardless of the numbers you can tell a difference between a 50 pin and a 150.At range its almost a non factor you learn to adjust your timing and your just as accurate.In CQB you will have more times to where it seems your gun just has a slower response or you die first and shots vanish,hitboxes etc.We are talking mil secs here

In clan vs clan its enough of a difference that most request server swap so each play with a low ping.We talking 6v6 of fairly equally skilled players sometimes a mil sec will get you killed.In a snap type ADS encounter the guy with the higher ping just has to be a tad faster.Small things like firing the smg before you round the corner on a known position can help.Most just adjust and can still do really good.

Over all this game does really great with a crazy high ping.Allowing players from around the world to play and not having no "Major" disadvantages.I'm not arguing numbers here i'm talking about what you can "Feel". Even tho its "Almost" unnoticeable it is there ask anyone who plays with a high ping.If they say no then they just don't know what a good ping feels like in the game.

Sensemann "How did I not kill you there ?"
Chosen-1 " I'm not living in China"

Yes, Gunther, yes -- I completely agree on all accounts. Not surprising that this view comes from another competitive-style player.

[PhoenixDragon]

I know he's on vacation, but he still put up some incorrect information that I feel needs correcting:

Originally Posted by TraXx

once again, I don't agree that latency does not have any affect on gameplay because of the advent of the antilag mutator.

Fortunately, nobody has made such a claim. The topic has been about how severe the effect is. In the case of 100ms vs 150ms, it's almost imperceptible (Again, a fraction of the time it takes to blink). Even when it becomes more perceptible, it's a small difference. It's not until you get to very high-levels of play with very skilled players, or fairly large differences in latency, that it becomes notable, and that doesn't describe the vast bulk of play.

In fact, with the bullets now cutting off at death, it's quite possible that the mutator actually HURTS those with higher latency more than it helps.

This is incorrect. While there is a minor difference between the current modeling of server-side and client-side hit-detection (Due to what is basically an oversight, server-side negates shots received from the player when that player is dead, while client-side negates hits instead), the description of the mutator's effects is backwards. The mutator had a much more robust double-kill method that extends the time period that a higher-ping player has to get his shot off before it is blocked, and prevented bullets in-flight from fizzling. So in fact, the mutator helps out quite nicely here.

(Edit: Also, I'm amused at being called out for doing research. Go figure.)

[dasopm]

this was not meant to be a flame war. PhoenixDragon you have most deff lost sight of this whole topic and try way to hard at making points on the internet. no matter what the point and case is here. All I wanted was to know if there was a way to fix my ping as I should not have the unacceptable 160 ping. Not the in and out's of latency, game coding and what not.


Let me say to the TWI devs. You have created one of the best FPS ever made. Red Orchestra Ostfront 41-45 is/was simply amazing. HoS is not far behind and I love and play the game ever day. I will be buying Rising Sun and the Nam expansion if it cost money. I was the first to preorder this game and eventually canceled my gamestop preorder just to preorder it on steam and get the beta. I wasn't even ill willed when the disaster of a launch happened.

ps please fix Commissars House. No reason the Ruskies should be fighting the Germans on 3 sides out of the spawn.

[Mike_Nomad]

Point blank.... The game performs quite well with pings up to 250ms....

After that, its anybody's guess. Yes, I speak from actual online experience - many, many hours. 1766 hours to be exact. Playing hours NOT standby time.

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by dasopm

All I wanted was to know if there was a way to fix my ping as I should not have the unacceptable 160 ping.

And I offered details of both why RO2 reports higher than other games (By up to 50ms), and why it's generally unimportant. If you don't think that discussion of the acceptability of 160 ping is on-topic, you probably shouldn't open the subject yourself.

[Veniathan]

From my experience i've relized that RO2 has horrible ping problems, for everyone.

I live in Sweden and play on Finnish, Russian, German and UK servers. In most games i get a maximum of 110 Ping on these.

Usualy for Finland and the UK i get about 90. In RO2 i get 168 ****ing ping on a Finnish server!

What the hell is this? And everyone else on the server has the same problem, always high ping.

[r5cya]

Originally Posted by Veniathan

From my experience i've relized that RO2 has horrible ping problems, for everyone.

I live in Sweden and play on Finnish, Russian, German and UK servers. In most games i get a maximum of 110 Ping on these.

Usualy for Finland and the UK i get about 90. In RO2 i get 168 ****ing ping on a Finnish server!

What the hell is this? And everyone else on the server has the same problem, always high ping.

why RO2 has higher ping than normal, was explained earlier in this thread.