@ Mekhazzio, LOL! ok! i was wondering why. they may also be unaware that you can get shot through many walls in this game. i still get a big laugh when a guy ducks behind a wall to avoid me and i just shoot him through it! 
Leading for ping is ridiculous, Mk.2: An Example
- Thread starter Mekhazzio
- Start date
- Status
I really can't make a response at this point without sounding like a complete asshole, so I'm going to just let other people drag this along for the hundredth time.
Compensation is not and never will be the solution. It just trades one set of problems for another.
(Hopefully this will post quicker than the last post I submitted)
I'm that friend Mekhazzio mentioned as no longer playing the game because of the networking. That video shows only the second time I've started up the game in the past month, simply to give a clear-cut demonstration of how the "dying behind cover" illusion exists in RO2 -- the other time this month being to join an empty server to get a Steam winter-sale achievement.
It's really dissapointing. RO2 has, essentially, become the best game I would not recommend to someone. And I love good-but-flawed games in general, some of my favorites still have plenty of odd quirks and outright bugs, but I play them anyway. RO2 has the distinction, however, of having its flaw not be a bug or oversight, but an intentional design decision. Even when my friend is playing RO2, I might stop and watch for a bit, even think of playing, but every time I know that it's going to end with disappointment.
What's really surprising is the general lack of understanding as to what is going on with networking.
In any multiplayer game, there will be a disparity between what the shooter sees, what the server sees, and what the target sees. There is, quite literally, no practical way to avoid this. The delay in the transmission of data makes this inevitable. Instead, we can only design games to attempt to give the illusion of simultaneous action for certain situations. The choice of networking model determines what point-of-view is going to be given this illusionary effect. You've got three choices here (Technically four, though two of them are effectively the same for this purpose):
Target-side hit-detection: This model has no dying-behind-cover illusion, because the target in the shooter-and-target relation judges all shots, and replies to the server that it got hit. The downside of this model? The shooter has to have his shot hit the target on the target's machine. This means he has to lead for both his own latency, and that of the target. For an internet game, where you will not know the precise latency of the target, this makes it almost impossible to hit a moving target with a pin-point weapon. I can think of only one game to ever use this model, and it was never intended to be played outside of a LAN.
Client-side hit-detection (Or latency-compensated server-side hit-detection): This model presents the most natural and accurate shooter-side appearance, as all of his shots are processed (Or appear to be processed) exactly the same as they would in single-player. Network conditions have no effect on this model under most circumstances, barring major packet loss or the like. The downside of this model? The dying-behind-cover illusion. Since the shot is processed either on the client or the server's rolled-back record, the target has a slight delay between when he is actually hit and when his computer gets the message. While he actually got hit while, say, running past a window, he doesn't receive the message until a moment later. He might see himself behind cover by then, but it's effectively an illusion. He's been dead a hundred or two milliseconds, when he was in the open, he just got to the appearance of living a little longer. Mind, the shooter did not have any longer of a time when the target was visible, he just doesn't have to lead for his own latency. The target was visible on the shooter's screen for the exact same amount of time.
And finally, the server-side hit-detection, with no latency compensation (What we have in RO2): This is, essentially, a compromise between the two. Unfortunately, as a compromise it has the flaws of both. Shooters do not get natural shooting, and targets can "die behind cover." The illusion of smooth and simultaneous action does not exist for any player in the game. It works acceptably for games that use lots of explosive/area attacks, cone attacks (Flak-cannon type, or cinematically-wide-spread shotguns), or ubiquitous high-rate-of-fire weapons with forgiving hit-detection, which is why UT used it (And nobody else recently). In a game that features slow-firing pin-point weapons like a bolt-action rifle as the standard and by far most common armament, this model works poorly.
So which do we go with? We want the one that breaks immersion the least, the one that will least frequently give results different than we would expect if everything were actually simultaneous, whether single-player or on a LAN. For the shooter-to-target relation, we have two possibilities that break from that expectation: Shooting at a moving target, or being shot in the last 1/5 to 1/4 of a second before arriving behind non-penetrable cover. The former is exceedingly common, likely about half the shots made in the game, maybe more, while the later is so uncommon people do not even recognize that it happens now. Even after a video demonstrating how it happens now, people still do not recognize that it happens. If it happens so rarely that you don't even recognize it happening now, how bad could it really be? Is double of "never" going to make a big difference?
Further, the current model encourages many of the tactics that so many people complain about on these forums. The run-and-gun, the MG hip-fire rushes, etc. Those are strong because the networking model gives an advantage to moving targets, particularly when competing against slow-firing pin-point weapons like riflemen. Someone with a MG or SMG is, thanks to the network model, less likely to get hit by bolt-action fire while running in the open than he is taking near-total cover. If we had a model where the shooter gets accurately-simulated firing, the viability of run-and-gun hip-fire tactics would be sharply curbed. Instead we get silly stuff where wiggling side-to-side as a rifleman is safer than bracing carefully behind cover. If you get ambushed in the open, you are safer continuing to run through that wide-open field than you are to take cover in an attempt to return fire. And if you're in close-range, never stop moving, particularly if you're trying to kill a rifleman.
As for the video itself, I'd like to give a few details, since some people seem to misunderstand what is happening. We set up the situation as best we could to show the "dying-behind-cover" illusion with as few variables as possible. We gave an establishing shot to show where I was shooting from. We showed the player list to note that we were the only players on the server, to show that I was, indeed, the one making the shot. He moved behind each side of the window to let me fire a burst into the wall, to demonstrate that the particular wall could not be penetrated by fire -- you can even see the particle effects clipping through the wall where my bullets hit, directly in front of him, yet none penetrate (It actually took us longer to find a suitable wall than it did anything else). Then we quickly go from that to a run-across while I fire into the window. Finally, after his body hit the ground, he looks around with the third-person camera, showing clearly that he died 1.5-2 meters past the last possible place he could be hit. It is as clearly as possible a demonstration of the dreaded dying-behind-cover illusion that people don't want "introduced" by any latency-friendly method.
Yet people complain that they don't want client-side or latency-compensated shot handling, completely willing to let the accurate simulation of shooting be trashed while not gaining anything in return.
I'm that friend Mekhazzio mentioned as no longer playing the game because of the networking. That video shows only the second time I've started up the game in the past month, simply to give a clear-cut demonstration of how the "dying behind cover" illusion exists in RO2 -- the other time this month being to join an empty server to get a Steam winter-sale achievement.
It's really dissapointing. RO2 has, essentially, become the best game I would not recommend to someone. And I love good-but-flawed games in general, some of my favorites still have plenty of odd quirks and outright bugs, but I play them anyway. RO2 has the distinction, however, of having its flaw not be a bug or oversight, but an intentional design decision. Even when my friend is playing RO2, I might stop and watch for a bit, even think of playing, but every time I know that it's going to end with disappointment.
What's really surprising is the general lack of understanding as to what is going on with networking.
In any multiplayer game, there will be a disparity between what the shooter sees, what the server sees, and what the target sees. There is, quite literally, no practical way to avoid this. The delay in the transmission of data makes this inevitable. Instead, we can only design games to attempt to give the illusion of simultaneous action for certain situations. The choice of networking model determines what point-of-view is going to be given this illusionary effect. You've got three choices here (Technically four, though two of them are effectively the same for this purpose):
Target-side hit-detection: This model has no dying-behind-cover illusion, because the target in the shooter-and-target relation judges all shots, and replies to the server that it got hit. The downside of this model? The shooter has to have his shot hit the target on the target's machine. This means he has to lead for both his own latency, and that of the target. For an internet game, where you will not know the precise latency of the target, this makes it almost impossible to hit a moving target with a pin-point weapon. I can think of only one game to ever use this model, and it was never intended to be played outside of a LAN.
Client-side hit-detection (Or latency-compensated server-side hit-detection): This model presents the most natural and accurate shooter-side appearance, as all of his shots are processed (Or appear to be processed) exactly the same as they would in single-player. Network conditions have no effect on this model under most circumstances, barring major packet loss or the like. The downside of this model? The dying-behind-cover illusion. Since the shot is processed either on the client or the server's rolled-back record, the target has a slight delay between when he is actually hit and when his computer gets the message. While he actually got hit while, say, running past a window, he doesn't receive the message until a moment later. He might see himself behind cover by then, but it's effectively an illusion. He's been dead a hundred or two milliseconds, when he was in the open, he just got to the appearance of living a little longer. Mind, the shooter did not have any longer of a time when the target was visible, he just doesn't have to lead for his own latency. The target was visible on the shooter's screen for the exact same amount of time.
And finally, the server-side hit-detection, with no latency compensation (What we have in RO2): This is, essentially, a compromise between the two. Unfortunately, as a compromise it has the flaws of both. Shooters do not get natural shooting, and targets can "die behind cover." The illusion of smooth and simultaneous action does not exist for any player in the game. It works acceptably for games that use lots of explosive/area attacks, cone attacks (Flak-cannon type, or cinematically-wide-spread shotguns), or ubiquitous high-rate-of-fire weapons with forgiving hit-detection, which is why UT used it (And nobody else recently). In a game that features slow-firing pin-point weapons like a bolt-action rifle as the standard and by far most common armament, this model works poorly.
So which do we go with? We want the one that breaks immersion the least, the one that will least frequently give results different than we would expect if everything were actually simultaneous, whether single-player or on a LAN. For the shooter-to-target relation, we have two possibilities that break from that expectation: Shooting at a moving target, or being shot in the last 1/5 to 1/4 of a second before arriving behind non-penetrable cover. The former is exceedingly common, likely about half the shots made in the game, maybe more, while the later is so uncommon people do not even recognize that it happens now. Even after a video demonstrating how it happens now, people still do not recognize that it happens. If it happens so rarely that you don't even recognize it happening now, how bad could it really be? Is double of "never" going to make a big difference?
Further, the current model encourages many of the tactics that so many people complain about on these forums. The run-and-gun, the MG hip-fire rushes, etc. Those are strong because the networking model gives an advantage to moving targets, particularly when competing against slow-firing pin-point weapons like riflemen. Someone with a MG or SMG is, thanks to the network model, less likely to get hit by bolt-action fire while running in the open than he is taking near-total cover. If we had a model where the shooter gets accurately-simulated firing, the viability of run-and-gun hip-fire tactics would be sharply curbed. Instead we get silly stuff where wiggling side-to-side as a rifleman is safer than bracing carefully behind cover. If you get ambushed in the open, you are safer continuing to run through that wide-open field than you are to take cover in an attempt to return fire. And if you're in close-range, never stop moving, particularly if you're trying to kill a rifleman.
As for the video itself, I'd like to give a few details, since some people seem to misunderstand what is happening. We set up the situation as best we could to show the "dying-behind-cover" illusion with as few variables as possible. We gave an establishing shot to show where I was shooting from. We showed the player list to note that we were the only players on the server, to show that I was, indeed, the one making the shot. He moved behind each side of the window to let me fire a burst into the wall, to demonstrate that the particular wall could not be penetrated by fire -- you can even see the particle effects clipping through the wall where my bullets hit, directly in front of him, yet none penetrate (It actually took us longer to find a suitable wall than it did anything else). Then we quickly go from that to a run-across while I fire into the window. Finally, after his body hit the ground, he looks around with the third-person camera, showing clearly that he died 1.5-2 meters past the last possible place he could be hit. It is as clearly as possible a demonstration of the dreaded dying-behind-cover illusion that people don't want "introduced" by any latency-friendly method.
Yet people complain that they don't want client-side or latency-compensated shot handling, completely willing to let the accurate simulation of shooting be trashed while not gaining anything in return.
you asked him to provide a video of 'dying behind cover', there it is, comment, you come across like a complete arsehole by not commenting.
heh, move complete, internet is slower now, deepest of joys I will have to lead people even more now lol
In RO2 you would have to shoot before he comes around the corner which is a lot harder to anticipate.
And the cs version will always feel more natural
With a rifle you will hit with a 100% chance when the target comes towards you but Im not sure if all bullets with a full auto weapon are regisered.
Last edited:
i'm glad you still have hope mekhazzio! I have uninstalled, and i think it was for the best. There are way too many people covering their ears and lalalaing here.
one last QFT:
This is a gunplay centered game. It really is, the weight, ballistics of the weapons are ****ing beautiful, and all that i wanted in a ww2 shooter. The network makes it a luck affair. Please stop bickering about the semantics of zig-zagging, and just watch the excellent gif mr mekhazzio made. If you dont see the problem there, then i just dont know what else to tell you. That is a straight shot, from a striaght runner, at 23 meters, well aimed, and it hits 200 ms later, at its shoulder. This is not 1996 anymore. Gunplay is important, and more in this game. Dying behind cover is a frustrating event, but shooting at targets happens just a little bit more often. I'd think that gives it a bit of importance. RO2 needs to acknowledge its a fairly niche game, and its audience is spread out. I can understand why they dont want a latency compensation model for this game, but this philosophy can never be applied with the median pings of the playerbase. Ever. How often does that cs example happen in a game? Jesus.
one last QFT:
This is a gunplay centered game. It really is, the weight, ballistics of the weapons are ****ing beautiful, and all that i wanted in a ww2 shooter. The network makes it a luck affair. Please stop bickering about the semantics of zig-zagging, and just watch the excellent gif mr mekhazzio made. If you dont see the problem there, then i just dont know what else to tell you. That is a straight shot, from a striaght runner, at 23 meters, well aimed, and it hits 200 ms later, at its shoulder. This is not 1996 anymore. Gunplay is important, and more in this game. Dying behind cover is a frustrating event, but shooting at targets happens just a little bit more often. I'd think that gives it a bit of importance. RO2 needs to acknowledge its a fairly niche game, and its audience is spread out. I can understand why they dont want a latency compensation model for this game, but this philosophy can never be applied with the median pings of the playerbase. Ever. How often does that cs example happen in a game? Jesus.
Last edited:
this was mentioned before, but i think it needs stressing..
one of the reasons this is a much bigger issue with RO2 over RO1 is the drastically faster running speeds, and similarly long sprinting...
..so atleast there is a margin of hope for a Realistically modded game to be more playable
one of the reasons this is a much bigger issue with RO2 over RO1 is the drastically faster running speeds, and similarly long sprinting...
..so atleast there is a margin of hope for a Realistically modded game to be more playable
For a lightly-encumbered rifleman (Rifle, 40 rounds, 2 grenades, uniform, and a few miscellaneous items, for a total of likely under 20 pounds), the running speed looks to be a somewhat sedate 5 meters per second, and they can only run for about 15 seconds before being completely exhausted. That's a lot closer to reality than RO1 was, but even a relatively average-to-unfit person like me can do at least that, if not better.
This is the reason I stopped playing RO2.
I just remembered the game existed and came to the forum to check if anything had changed, unfortunately, as you are still discussing this, it means I'll just keep waiting for Diablo...
I just remembered the game existed and came to the forum to check if anything had changed, unfortunately, as you are still discussing this, it means I'll just keep waiting for Diablo...
I am also waiting for Diablo 3 and Guild Wars 2 (although D3 is extremely casual and GW2 is Aion but thats another w/e)
RO2 to me is like Skyrim. They are chores instead of games. I hate doing them but I just have to *shrugs*. I've learned to just deal with the lols. I know that 99% of the time I am in the safe from an enemy shot but I am also 10!% positive that the enemy has seen me coming way before I saw them.
Thats how I play RO2 is by knowing that.
This is a good thread though.
The reason for that is because you have nothing constructive to counter with, because he is right and you are not.
Also, repeating the same statement over and over again will not somehow magically make it right.
The reason for that is because you have nothing constructive to counter with, because he is right and you are not.
Also, repeating the same statement over and over again will not somehow magically make it right.
I dunno who you are, but please, read up on Ping Compensation.
I don't have anything constructive to say here because I already said it in one of the various other threads dealing with the same issues.
Don't worry, yet another one will pop up soon enough I'm sure. It happens with all the topics
I would rather die behind cover than adjusting bullet lead on player by player basis based on the said player's latency.
Getting shot at close enough so that lag shooter-side detection takes me out while I get in cover is far less problematic than my own weapon not functioning. Getting in cover is very important part of the game, but in a shooter game, the most important aspect is shooting. I would gladly trade some refinement in cover taking (with covers that can be shot through anyway) for more crisp shooting mechanics any day.
Getting shot at close enough so that lag shooter-side detection takes me out while I get in cover is far less problematic than my own weapon not functioning. Getting in cover is very important part of the game, but in a shooter game, the most important aspect is shooting. I would gladly trade some refinement in cover taking (with covers that can be shot through anyway) for more crisp shooting mechanics any day.
Until I see someone who I KNOW has enough network coding knowledge to answer this definitively, I remain unconvinced that any approach that treats clients as "authoritative" is worth switching to. CSS and TF2 are NOT good examples of how RO2 would work with such a model. Completely different beasts, both incredibly simple games under the hood.
what? can you explain that in more detail to me, please? esp. the trading refinement part? seems like such a broad, vague statement. what are you willing to give up there?
I may be wrong but I think he is talking about a better covering system like when hiding behind sand bags they could be penetrated. If thats what he is talking about then I agree. I think covers should be penetrated with bullets. The only penetratable wall(s) I know of is the walls in Welding Shed (B) in Red October Factory.
Are you really saying that you are able to react in less than one-fourth of a second? Really?
CS version doesn't feel more natural to the guy being shot at because it sucks dying after you're in a safe spot behind cover.
- Status