Lack of interpolation really kills games with a small community.

[Grimreapo]

Again, not saying TWI cant do anything but do you REALLY want them to write the netcode for something this complex? I mean if so many f'ed it up then how is TWI gonna get it right? I'm only being harsh on the system due past experiences and the BF3 beta still leaves a bad taste in my mouth:
Hit Registration of Battlefield 3 BETA - YouTube

 

[Mekhazzio]

I don't see any problem with that video. "Instant death" is supposed to be something surprising in a twitch shooter with automatic weapons? Falling over dead a tenth of a second after you passed a corner is supposed to be a fault? Even the server wouldn't have had you behind cover at that point, it's obvious he got lit up while he was plainly exposed. I'd bet it all those cases look fine from the shooter's side, and they're not even that off on the receiving side. If that's the worst someone can come up with, BF3 apparently did a pretty good job with it.

 

[WallyAussie]

Again, not saying TWI cant do anything but do you REALLY want them to write the netcode for something this complex?

Isn't lag-compensation already written into Unreal 3? Or is that something I've confused with something else?

Because I swear I read somewhere in these forums that the developers took efforts to remove rather than add lag-compensation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've been lurking here for a few years and things are easily confused.





Wally

 

[The_Cook]

Very informative, thanks for taking the time to write that up. I wonder why TWI has taken the server side route when the client side processing seems to be so much more effective at keeping things consistent and smooth-running.

simply pit client side calculations are easy hacking. remember CS? BF, Quake, UT, TF, COD etc etc etc.. a month or so after release each game was hacked bad, toward middle and end stage it was a hackfestation. pratically killed the communities respectively.

 

[6S.Maraz]

As someone who has played BF3 and the other modern shooters I can say no thanks to this, in theory this is nice but I have not seen a game use it well

The IL-2 series of flight simulator has been using client side hit detection for about 10 years and is still alive and kicking!

This is absolutely a must in air combat, when correct computation of hit deflection is 80-90% of combat skills. In IL-2 you can play and fight well even with 200-300ms ping, if it's stable.

But this solution might not be good for RO2, where you mostly have close distance combat, even though you also do some long range shooting (up to 200-250m, maybe more when will we have modded maps).

Each solution (client-side or server-side detection) has is pros and cons.

Maraz

 

[Machete234]

Ive played a lot of FPS games from UT, CS 1.6 to CoD4 and this.
Nothing has made me rage more than the getting hit around the corner BS in BF3.

I seriously didnt buy BF3 because I allready own BC2 and I knew that the same problem would be in the new game too.


For some reason I can drive people crazy with my sometimes bad ping because they cant hit me even though RO2 is not supposed to have lag compensation or interpolation.

 

[blackjack.tom]

simply pit client side calculations are easy hacking. remember CS? BF, Quake, UT, TF, COD etc etc etc.. a month or so after release each game was hacked bad, toward middle and end stage it was a hackfestation. pratically killed the communities respectively.

RO2 already has both VAC and punkbuster.

 

[Grimreapo]

The IL-2 series of flight simulator has been using client side hit detection for about 10 years and is still alive and kicking!

This is absolutely a must in air combat, when correct computation of hit deflection is 80-90% of combat skills. In IL-2 you can play and fight well even with 200-300ms ping, if it's stable.

But this solution might not be good for RO2, where you mostly have close distance combat, even though you also do some long range shooting (up to 200-250m, maybe more when will we have modded maps).

Each solution (client-side or server-side detection) has is pros and cons.

Maraz

Ah, the issue with IL-2, as you kind of say, is that you are hitting a plane that very far away and there is no cover to get shot behind. The Client Side side system just does not work which it comes to frantic combat when there is cover from what I have seen.

Isn't lag-compensation already written into Unreal 3? Or is that something I've confused with something else?

Depending on the age of the engine that TWI its got UT3's netcode which was meh or its not the GoW code which is really, really horrible...

I know its bad for you ozzies but the current system is really refreshing from how the other big name games work and I wuld not like to see it chnaged, improved yes but not changed...

I don't see any problem with that video. "Instant death" is supposed to be something surprising in a twitch shooter with automatic weapons?

For a game that gives player high health, yes, yes it is...

 

[dazman76]

But on that players screen, the guy was right on target. Lag compensation makes the experience more accurate from the shooters experience.

To me this makes perfect sense, as shooting is the most precision oriented part of the game.

I'm afraid I still don't understand this point of view. Why would you want an accurate experience from a shooter, when that shooter's own lag could be causing inaccuracy in position updates, and therefore chalking up bogus kills? You seem to be missing the fact that the shooter's perspective is often irrelevant - if player B isn't where they appear to be when player A shoots at them, they shouldn't be dead. B should not be penalised because A's game assumes that B is a valid target, when in fact they are not. That whole idea, in my opinion, borders on ridiculous.

I can't help feeling that, after being on the receiving end of this "compensation", you'd get sick of it quickly. It's quite obvious in the posted videos, that something is very wrong, and the bias is towards the shooter. This just breaks every golden rule of multiplayer theory

Now, it isn't that I have no sympathy for those who suffer high pings - I honestly wish you could enjoy the game properly. However, if we were to do extensive testing on this across the board, I'm confident the conclusion would be that the current model/approach results in a playable, "mostly accurate" game for the vast majority of players. High pings are the minority - I know this won't be an appreciated comment, but it's true. In Europe, there are plenty of servers spread wide and providing good options for many players. Same in the US, I assume. This does really suck for other territories, but completely changing the game to cater for this does not make sense. What should happen, is more local servers being created. This is beyond TWI's control - and the game, along with the majority of players, should not have to suffer because of this situation.

Sorry, high pingers, but this kind of change would reduce the player base even further and leave only those who requested this change, fighting each other with crazy pings and making kills by shooting empty space. Doesn't really seem like a good way to go.

 

[Grobut]

The killed around the corner argument is so unbelievably fallacious I can't understand how people take it seriously -

Black Ops lag compensation - YouTube

Pull the other one.

 

[Sufyan]

Dying around the corner when trying to get away from incoming fire is frustrating and it ruins the immersion by making cause and reaction seem entirely disconnected within the game, but it is argueably a fair outcome.

There is however a very good example of what often happens when you implement some sort of lag compensation:

Player A is mostly stationary, perhaps around a corner expecting enemies to come any moment now.

Player B is advancing toward the corner that is being watched by player A.

Neither player has seen eachother yet.

Both players are naturally a little bit out of sync, perhaps only 100ms. This doesn't matter much in the case of player A's position in the world since he is in one spot or at least not moving very fast. Whatever time discrepency between clients, he is roughly in the same spot at both different points in time. Player B on the other hand is moving at full speed so there is a discrepency to his actual position when comparing both clients.

Player B rounds the corner and sees Player A aiming straight at him. At this point, Player B is still out of view for another 100ms before appearing around the corner on Player A's screen.

In this fraction of a second, Player A is in full view of Player B while Player B is entirely in cover and unseen by Player A. Supposedly, Player B is a skilled twitch shooter and seemingly instantly throws his sights down on Player A's outline and fires.

Player A now sees player B coming around the corner. Player A was concentrated and ready to fire at anything that moves because he was certain only enemies would be coming from this direction. He fires at Player B and sees bullet impacts and blood, because this is what the game client normally renders.

On Player B's screen, Player A is killed without having fired a single shot.

On Player A's screen, Player A instantly drops dead, perhaps without even seeing the flash or hearing Player B shoot.

Sorry, Player A. While it may appear that you shot first, truth is, Player B shot you 100ms ago because on he was able to see you before he even appeared on your screen. Just get with the program and join the run and gun game because it makes you less vulnerable to little "quirks" like these.

 

[mattlach]

Summary.

Lag compensation unjustly benefits the shooter.

Lack of lag compensation unjustly benefits the bullet dodger.

With this in mind a skilled programmer ought to be able to design a system that interpolates between the two players screens, and presents results based on that.

 

[Graphic]

I have only two worthwhile servers from my country. And one of them is closing down soon. My options will soon become playing in 250ms+ servers and leading targets by five body lengths, or not playing at all. I've read Ramm's "rationale" for keeping with the old UT-style netcode and I'm just not seeing it. If interpolation is such a poor choice, how come all modern shooters are using it? MW3? BF3? All Valve games? Brink and ET Quake Wars, both made with an engine whose default netcode was not interpolated, yet still ended up with interpolation for playability's sake? Even the latest IL2 (and the original for that matter), which is a hardcore flight sim taking simulation much further than RO2, employs interpolation. Are all these developers misguided? Or maybe it's TWI who's undervaluing the benefits of overall playability in relation to assuring the absence of dubious grievances such as "being killed after rounding a corner"?

---

Fair point.

Its just seems that TWI (and Ramm in particular, going off of his forum posts) are set in their ways and are unwilling to admit that they've made a wrong choice, let alone actually change something.

"It's good enough for me"

 

[Mekhazzio]

There is however a very good example of what often happens when you implement some sort of lag compensation:

Player A is mostly stationary, perhaps around a corner expecting enemies to come any moment now.

Player B is advancing toward the corner that is being watched by player A.

This is more an example of what happens without lag compensation. Networking generally always favors the mover. With the standard server model, the winner of this theoretical mover aimbot vs watcher aimbot scenario is going to be the mover, every time, unless they're at a significant enough latency disadvantage compared to the watcher to make up for the initiative advantage. Not having any sort of compensation further degrades the situation by requiring some arbitrary amount of lead from the watcher - the only way the watcher could compete at all would be to fire before he even saw the mover come around the corner. You'd need a wallhack to go with that aimbot. If you run this scenario with client-side hit detection, both clients would be registering their hits before they die, so you'd get the more appropriate result of both characters dropping dead from trading snap shots.

Pull the other one.

Yeah, and? That codblops video clearly shows the guy getting shot in the doorway, which is the point. He got shot when he was exposed, and it was a perfectly fair shot. Should that shot have magically whiffed simply because the scenario was faster paced than the networking could handle? Then you'd instead have a rage video posted by the shooter about his obvious pointblank hit not hitting...and RO2 has more than a little bit of youtube footage of that very thing. There is no middle ground, you get to choose between missing hits, or "dying behind cover". The difference is that the former is a real issue and the latter is a misconception.

 

[ORYLY]

What about applying client-side prediction to calculable movements like sprinting enemies? This should take care of having to lead moving targets by half a meter at the expense of the target noticeably(?) snapping back if they come to a full stop.

 

[WallyAussie]

Post offering a succinct rejoinder to several comments

You beat me to the punch. You raised every point I wanted to, probably better than I would have, thanks.

There is no middle ground, you get to choose between missing hits, or "dying behind cover". The difference is that the former is a real issue and the latter is a misconception.

This is the crux of the issue, and it needs to be fully understood by those "legitimate shot deniers". Well said.






Wally

 

[Tweek]

There is however a very good example of what often happens when you implement some sort of lag compensation:<snip>

A very similar thing happens with RO however. Sometimes in high ping servers I'll come around a corner the same time as an enemy and we both ADS and fire at nearly the same time. I clearly see that I was aiming at him and I hear and see my gun go off, but I die and he is fine, why? Because his connection sent the 'bullet fired' message to the server before me, and hence the server considers me dead before it gets my bullet fired message.

 

[Reise]

Yeah, and? That codblops video clearly shows the guy getting shot in the doorway, which is the point. He got shot when he was exposed, and it was a perfectly fair shot. Should that shot have magically whiffed simply because the scenario was faster paced than the networking could handle? Then you'd instead have a rage video posted by the shooter about his obvious pointblank hit not hitting...and RO2 has more than a little bit of youtube footage of that very thing. There is no middle ground, you get to choose between missing hits, or "dying behind cover". The difference is that the former is a real issue and the latter is a misconception.

It's not a misconception.

It's a choice of whether you want your lag represented in movement or in shot registration.

Personally I get very frustrated when I realize the movements I make mean dick because some guy with 500 ping can just shoot where he sees me and nets a kill because "that's where I happened to be according to the server at the time". My own personal strategy and reactions are meaningless because I'm being killed before I even get anywhere.

I will ALWAYS prefer to adjust my shots a little rather than pander to the fools with high pings and be completely at their mercy. What's the point of being in a nice low-latency server if you can't trust your own location in a match? Sure you can hit guys just as unfairly as they can hit you, but if thats the case you might as well be standing out in the open half the time. Ping compensation only serves to lower the bar.

 

[Floyd]

I'm with Reise.

Without lag compensation, as a shooter one can at least compensate for the latency. Its not really all that difficult once you 'dial' in the avg persons ping and your own. With lag compensation, as the target, you can't compensate for the computer's compensation of your ping vs your opponents.

I'd rather use my brain's inherent ability to make the natural adjustments. I know its tough for some to break old habits of pointing directly at the target to get a kill (try a round or two of sporting clays, it'll change your game..). I rather enjoy and get some satifaction out of figuring out the correct lead for that really long shot of someone running full bore. If the latency is high, I just consider it crosswind. And I get a lot of satisfaction out of getting an up close kill when I've correctly surmized where my opponent was headed and lead him appropriately.

I don't get any satisfaction from taking in my surroundings, deciding upon my course of action from what I see on my screen only to get killed after I've successfully made it to cover because the other guys computer told the server he hit me. .....He should have led me more...

 

[Mekhazzio]

Personally I get very frustrated when I realize the movements I make mean dick because some guy with 500 ping can just shoot where he sees me and nets a kill because "that's where I happened to be according to the server at the time". My own personal strategy and reactions are meaningless because I'm being killed before I even get anywhere.

Your strategy and reactions are meaningless because people can actually hit you when you're exposed? What, is your strategy to watch their gun barrels move and attempt to dodge bullets Matrix-style? That guy with the 500 ping isn't seeing you appear at random places, he's seeing you at exactly the places you intended to be at, in the exactly the sequence you intended to be at them, with exactly the same timing. Him shooting you isn't a vindictive algorithm inventing fiction simply to spite you, it's your actions having the consequences they would have had were you attempting that strategy on a LAN.

What validates one's gameplay is having it be successful because of its strengths, and not because it relies on the magical security blanket of basic networking. Don't get me wrong, I do a lot of dashing around to stick a PPSh in people's faces too, but it's a lot more successful than it has any right to be. The bulk of that success is because of the aura of bullet deflection you get while running, and certainly not because running through areas covered by men with guns is somehow a smart thing to do.