cs is just as bad
Hope that's tongue-in-cheek
In several years of no-life level CSS play I never once saw a player as spongy as most are in recent BF titles. The sad thing is, EA/DICE seem unwilling to increase the tick rate to even a comparatively "meh" 30, let alone 50+. I guess they're using some kind of server virtualization to squeeze more money per box, but then that would be EA's call.
On a decent server & connection I'm pretty sure you can reduce interp to 0 in CS and it functions flawlessly (or at least it did in ~2007, the last time I played Source). I can only imagine it's as good, if not better with CSGO [allegedly] supporting 128 tick.
Moreover, I'm surprised to see so many defending BF4's netcode all over the internet... ranging from ignorance to apologeticism.
"It's perfect, get skillz scrub"
to
"They couldn't increase the tick rate even if they wanted to, [we/they] don't have the [bandwidth/processing power/fairy dust] to make it work"
Now bear with me. In 2005, I was playing on 20-man 66-tick Source servers with zero choke/loss on a ping of 10~20ms, on a lowly 1mbps Wanadoo Broadband connection, via a cheap Belkin wireless router which loved to drop-out every few hours for no apparent reason. My CPU was a single core 2.4ghz Athlon 64 3400+ /anecdote
Sure, BF4 isn't hitscan, and has a "realistic" ballistic model, with destructible buildings and deformable terrain. In its current state it's also a complete joke competitively.
Call me self-entitled, whatever... as far as I'm concerned, there's no excuse for a 2013 game's netplay being unable to perform as well as a game almost a decade older, with our rigs being god-knows how much more powerful and our connections being -in my case- up to 100x faster.