Oh yea? You must have forgotten all the problems BF3 had at launch.. you couldn't even chat with anyone for the first 6 months.

As of last couple of DLCs my game crashes after 10 minutes of play. hard crash- take out the PS3 hard reboot kind of crash.

BF4 can suck my nads.

1. The game runs on dedicated servers.

Alone, this doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. But if you see someone who's visibly lagging, in 90% of cases, the lag is at YOUR end, not theirs. There are times when you can tell that one particular player is laggy while everything else is running well, but this is usually either lost packets or a really terrible connection to the server. In either of these situations, the end result is usually the player being disconnected from the battle rather than seeing it through to the end. Also, while that player may be very difficult to hit, they'll be having similar trouble getting anything done themselves, only for them, it will be affecting EVERYONE instead of just one player.

2. Hit detection is handled server-side.

THIS is the big one. You need a way to judge YOUR ping/latency to the server, so you know how far to lead your shots. If there's someone moving smoothly on your screen, and that player is laggy, but you have less than 50ms ping, your 0.05s delay won't result in anything going awry.

Ammo counts are also run server-side, so you can watch the delay between firing and seeing your ammo counter drop as an approximate gauge of how far to lead your shots. It's not foolproof, but it gives you a good point to start your estimates from.

---

EDIT: In EVE Online, there's a "time dilation" effect where the game slows down to basically make up for laggy situations. The time dilation rating of a system tells you how laggy the game is running there, and as a result, how slow everything will be compared with optimal.

It would be nice to have an in-universe explanation for some form of ping counter when you're going into battle, and when - unlike the custom clones used by EVE Capsuleers, we're running with mass-produced cheapo clones, I have an idea...

Why don't they give us a "clone sync" indicator, using the explanation that each individual's brain patterns have the potential for minor synchronisation issues when connecting to the particular patch of clones on a particular planet. When you're trying to connect to a battle, the official story would be that a baseline sample of your brain pattern is run through a cloned brain to test how well you're going to sync up with the currently-available batch of clones on-world. This test gives an approximation of how much "synchronisation delay" there is between thought and action (measure in milliseconds, obviously).

Sound like a good way to work ping into lore?

on 1 i gotta call no go:

no way to tell who is laggin.

oh well, there is one way:
ping rating for each player. but that goes against the casual mantra so that aint gonna happen.

you claim its on the "seers" end i call it on the "laggers" end, no way to tell. split decision.





hit detection is GARRRRBAGE.
and is actually the bane of most games.

horrible on this one.


but posting about it aint gonna fix it.

doubt ccp is going to either.

we got what we got.

Peace
B

Devs have confirmed there are servers worldwide - no word on numbers or specific locations anywhere I've seen, but they're based in Iceland and have a Shanghai office, so either of those would be solid bets for a server location. Pretty sure they'd have a server in NA - probably US-based - as well. When we've had games which list the location of servers, they've been labeled US, EU and Asia, so while it's possible there are more individual locations than those 3, I'd be inclined to at least think those three are the majority of DUST's server capabilities.

Devs have stated in the past that the game preferentially TRIES to match you into a local server when a game is available, but will put you on a "more laggy" (not their words, just how you're likely to see it) server if there are no local battles available.

because COD sucks WORSE! lol.

BF3 was as good as it got on the PS3... until dust.

now BF4 will be the same lamesauce as bf3 with marginally better graphics, a couple extra weapons, etc. EA will catch on at some point and try to make BF like dust. mark my words.. it will just be years from now and too late....

and still be buggy and have all the shortcomings the previous games did.

bf3 sucked because it was a cod version of battlefield.

just like bc1 and bc2 and vietnam and every other version that has come out.

the last REAL bf game was bf2mc and you guys would NEVER be able to play that game. woulda killed ya or turned your hair white.



and i HAVE had a UK guy in my squad and as soon as we hit the room either he was complaining that it was laggy or the other 3 in the squad were. so it's on CCP to fix it, since we don't have access to the game code.



or implement the player ping rating and THEN the player base can sort it out, manually.


Peace
B

i think you're seriously confused, brother...


1. i'm not defending a damn thing. what i'm saying is that ALL games since bf2mc have been watered down for the codbois and it's actually bled over into 514.

2. at this point, based on the info for the next build, i'm gonna hold my judgement til i see if this thing has legs or not. the next build should separate the clans out from the children and garbage gamers and if there is some substance in the warfare THEN we can go back to the lag issue and i'll just be biching for the same thing which they won't do because it goes against the "cater to the casual" dev mentality and that is for the player ping rating. which WAS in bfmc2, but if you're a codboi or under 30, you have no clue because you weren't there for it. combine player ping rating with v2k and there was virtually NO lag in those rooms because the players didn't have to put up with it. see a guy with a red ping rating, kick em, problem solved. but they are hinting at doing a "room" ping rating which is crap, because then the laggy bastards are just gonna jump in the green rooms and turn em red and they players causing it will never know because they are too stupid to check their ping and the players experiencing it will never know because all youll see is that if you check the "room stat page" it was green when the match started but now it's red so you can either suck lag or quit out, find a new green ping room and wait til the next laggy bastard shows up to turn it red.
because you can't have v2k because again... codbois. they have soft skin. whole other thread.

so yeah don't think im on ccps jock because i'm pretty sure at this point neither one of us are big fans of the other. but ill give em a chance to prove me wrong. and ill admit it if they do.


Peace
B

I don't know anyone who has a straight answer to this, whether from testing or from the devs.

I'm not 100% certain, but I SEEM to have been put into the US servers more often than usual when I'm in a squad with US-based friends. I'm in New Zealand. I haven't properly tested this, but in my experience, it seems like the game takes into account average ping ot server for the squad.

Don't take that at face value, I'm still calling it unconfirmed because it's based on vague impressions from a single source, not proper empirical testing.

---

And Bassmeant's logic is great, assuming that DUST's netcode works like CoD and BF games with client-side hit detection. There's plenty of evidence within the game to tell us that ISN'T the case, and as a result, Bassmeant's logic is really obviously flawed.

With hit detection and other factors being handled server-side, a high-ping player won't be wrecking the latency of players with better connections. Their bad connection is almost entirely limited to affecting them.

It's not 100% confirmed that they did, it's just the most reasonable explanation for how the game works.

And working from that (logical and well-supported) assumption, I'd say they chose that way because of a variety of reasons.

1. Lag-switches don't break server-side hit detection.
2. A single player's poor connection won't ruin the game for everyone else.
3. Hacks don't work when everything is verified server-side.
4. Mods can't be used when everything is verified server-side.

Points 3 and 4 may not be common factors to worry about on the PS3, since the system is relatively secure against such things, but they CAN and DO happen even on this console. The XBox 360 has more trouble with it, and many PC games promote both as "features" instead of trying to prevent them outside of competitive environments where they have to have a stack of micromanagement and moderators and video evidence when such claims are being made.

Handling things server-side allows CCP to neatly side-step the problems, but results in (usually minor) hit detection problems where people aren't accounting for their connection to the server. Which, admittedly, is understandable when people aren't TOLD our current latency...