Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

Status
Not open for further replies.
Number_25 said:
Stop being such fan boys guys.

DICE are trying to compete directly with Call of Duty, if this means offering a quick-paced action-filled gametype and maps LET THEM DO IT.

I quite like the idea of it as I find it incredibly hard just to drop in for a game or two when I fancy, you have to be in the right frame of mind to play 50 minute games of conquest large.

Oh and if you don't like the idea, DONT BUY IT.
Click to expand...

***No personal attacks***

BF3 Aint COD. CoD does what CoD does better then BF3 because COD has a proper hitreg. If we want a COD experience guess what? I'll start up MW3/COD4.

It seems like u are the fanboi because u defend DICE while they are dropping the ball and we all know it. We complain because we are disappointed and see the obvious mistakes they are making (16 player max sod off...).

On the u don't need to buy it argument.. Well i guess we kinda do because we want the weapons and unlocks.
 
MrLOL said:
I think we've got to face the facts that Battlefield is a huge franchise now, and there are more than just us Battlefield Veterans playing the game.

Go have a browse on the Battlelog forums and check out what Veteran Rank people have. There are plenty that are new to the game..
Click to expand...

Tell me about it, the servers are filled with noobs facepalm/

like c4ing your own teams tank, or repeatedly grenading your own team. or just nto spawning at B on metro...

Yea okay i tk a few people but its always because im actually aiming for the enemy, and someone gets in the way.
 
kunoichia said:
BF3 Aint COD. CoD does what CoD does better then BF3 because COD has a proper hitreg.
Click to expand...

Yeah mate .. whatever you say



kunoichia said:
It seems like u are the fanboi because u defend DICE while they are dropping the ball and we all know it. We complain because we are disappointed and see the obvious mistakes they are making (16 player max sod off...).
Click to expand...

Well that depends who you are referring to when you talk about dropping the ball. You have to accept the fact that DICE / EA are aiming to make the game appeal to as many people as possible. I know its easy to shout Console Derp at this point but its nothing to do with consoles, or tbh even COD. Its just about aiming to appeal to as many people as possible. And that includes those who just want to play BF3 deathmatch.

There are loads of them unfortunately, they've bought the game, and they will likely buy this DLC as well. We just have to accept that as conquest players, its not meant to appeal for us. The next DLC after that - armoured fist is. You can pretend that everybody who plays battlefield is a die hard Battlefield franchise veteran, and wants lots of huge conquest maps, but you'd be wrong.

Granted there are plenty of us that do, but there are plenty that don't and won't play conquest and just play Team Deathmatch / squad deathmatch.
 
Last edited:
Neil79 said:
^ Unbelievable....Unbelievable....Unbelievable....

:D
Click to expand...

it was ridiculous though. if you pause the vid you can see his body drops right the way round the corner. Its not even like the game dragged his body back to in the alleyway because it got his position wrong.
 
^ That's happened to me a lot on BF3, yeh I saw that video but " killed around corners " is one of the well known aspects of BF3 :(
 
MrLOL said:
it was ridiculous though. if you pause the vid you can see his body drops right the way round the corner. Its not even like the game dragged his body back to in the alleyway because it got his position wrong.
Click to expand...
You really need to learn and understand the affects of latency on/over TCP on something that is "realtime" like a game. :/

On the other guys screen the guy who died will not have been behind the wall. Killcam will be out of sync with what is on the other guy's screen, before you try to claim that you can see it!

All killcam does is replay the events, as according to the client that "died", from the POV of the killer. If the events are out of sync when you die, then so will the killcam.

Imagine this over simplified scenario:

Client A sends packet "running behind this wall"
Packet is lost
Client B sends packet "shooting at client A"
Packet received
Client A re-sends packet "running behind this wall"
Server replies "Too late, you dead lolz"
Client A "oh, but I'm already behind the wall. Oh well, I'll just die here."

OR:

Client A sends packet "running behind this wall"
Some latency turbulence for packet from Client A.
Client B sends packet "Shot/killed Client A"
Packet from Client B received.
Packet from Client A received.
Server replies to Client A "Too late, you dead lolz"
Client A "oh, but I'm already behind the wall. Oh well, I'll just die here."

So from Client A's POV:

I'm running behind this wall.
Oh, I'm dead.

From Client B's POV:

Shot/Killed Client A.

From Server's POV:

Client B shot/killed Client A.
Client A died.
Client A ran behind wall. ERROR: Cannot do this, they are dead!

So yeah, it's not a simple case of "just fix it!" without inventing a latency-free network protocol on a volatile physical medium that the internet is. Quick hint: You can't.

so in short, unless DICE replace the ENTIRE INTERNET this problem will not be fixed. Get over it.

p.s. this isn't just at you, MrLOL.
 
except of course it doesnt happen in games with proper servers and proper hit registration.

Never got shot round corners in games like CS.
 
Number_25 said:
Stop being such fan boys guys.

DICE are trying to compete directly with Call of Duty, if this means offering a quick-paced action-filled gametype and maps LET THEM DO IT.

I quite like the idea of it as I find it incredibly hard just to drop in for a game or two when I fancy, you have to be in the right frame of mind to play 50 minute games of conquest large.

Oh and if you don't like the idea, DONT BUY IT.
Click to expand...

I'd rather they left MoH to compete with CoD. There's no reason to dilute Battlefield just to attract the CoD players, it spoils everything.
 
creed said:
but they don't need to replace the internets they just needed to code the game for server-side hit reg rather than client-side surely?!
Click to expand...

Yep

The downside is of course, that when an enemy runs across your screen, you have to aim behind them to hit where the player is on their screen, rather than on yours.

but Counter Strike had variable interpolation and network settings and was very good at getting it just right. You hit what you shot at, and you didn't get shot round corners.

CS 1.6 hit boxes / net code was brilliant.
 
MrLOL you picked the worst example of reg go with cod 4 a normal game 99.9 percent of every bullet on target registers everytime:rolleyes:

bf3 isnt in the same ballpark as cod for reg . there will always be extreme examples of lag / latency in fps if the persons or servers ar bad but come on bf3 has **** reg compared.

as for making bf3 into cod they are trying !

they have copied there sales pattern mirrored how they do dlc and even trying to release annually one month before to get/beat there sales !

they have even admitted how they love what cod has done.

this isnt to mention other ingame things in bf3 which are blatent rip offs from similar maps , the spawning in tdm is mirrored from cod .

at the end of day fast and furious sells more than slow and long ;)

i enjoy the game but with reg like cod4 it would and could have been truley epic but with how its made it wont happen. what i dont get is in moh last one that had the epic reg like cod4 why they didnt mirror that ill never know

if cod last november would have been cod4 with vehicles people wouldnt even have been playing bf3 ! bold statement but its true. mw3 was so bad that everyone basically who would have stayed cod converted even though the game is far from perfect . its just better than modern warfare 3 thats all and people will play the better game of the moment.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
bf3 isnt in the same ballpark as cod for reg . there will always be extreme examples of lag / latency in fps if the persons or servers ar bad but come on bf3 has **** reg compared.
Click to expand...

COD as a franchise ? or COD : Modern Warfare 1.

Because COD as a franchise is ****ed. Infinity War are going to continue using that netcode in their future games. And the netcode used by Treyarch in black ops is equally poor with both franchises now using this artificial lag to try and level out both peoples screens, so that you get the best of client side (where your shots at somebody count because they were in your sights on your screen) but then trying to lag you such that your screen is then actually in time with the players position when the time taken to get your screen is taken into account.

It sounds great but it doesnt work.

And both treyarch and IW are pushing ahead with it, so i think you've got no chance of seeing the sort of Quality Hit Registration we had with COD4 ever again.
 
tbh still cod has better hitreg overall than bf3

ive stood over people from 1 foot behind them and emptied whole magazines of bullets into them and not one registered ! on my youtube channel and i have a 10-20 ping on euro servers :rolleyes:

even on american or worse on cod servers i will NEVER get that bad reg.

might do a video pick random cod4 server then pick random bf3 ;) .
 
MrLOL said:
Yep

The downside is of course, that when an enemy runs across your screen, you have to aim behind them to hit where the player is on their screen, rather than on yours.

but Counter Strike had variable interpolation and network settings and was very good at getting it just right. You hit what you shot at, and you didn't get shot round corners.

CS 1.6 hit boxes / net code was brilliant.
Click to expand...

The reason was simply because high pingers got kicked. What they have done to fps games is this stupid interping heavy style rather than just make a more strict ping kick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom