Users often have poor connections.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

Mr Saffron is barking up the correct tree. The trouble is finding enough people to play with the same latency to prove anything convincingly.

I get picked as host 99/% of the time. On numerous occasions if I run and find a member of the other team immediately, the first couple of kills are virtually free, 2 bullets doing the job. After that it reverse completely and a whole clip won't kill most of the opposite team.

It almost seems like your connection is monitored for a few seconds before the code decides your average latency and then applies the appropriate correction factor. That may not be what is happening of course, but it feels like it.

Why not make your self not connectable so you don't get picked as host.

Apart from being picked as host, I can't think why low latency would make things worse (when hosting).

If you are host then your latency is zero and your real latency is just added to the clients, which may mean that having more latency means even more lag compensation as the clients will be lagging more.

Of course if you see this when playing as a client then I suppose adding some may help equal things out.
If you have a wired lan, are into network geekery and can boot a PC into linux (live cd may do) then you could add some latency with some funky routing and netem.

In reply to a post by restarts:

Dedicated servers don't make a single bit of difference, Lag compensation is also used in dedicated servers.

True, but depending on the game high pingers can be excluded automatically, or admins can kick them.

In reply to a post by legume:

In reply to a post by restarts:

Dedicated servers don't make a single bit of difference, Lag compensation is also used in dedicated servers.

True, but depending on the game high pingers can be excluded automatically, or admins can kick them.

Which is basically the point.

Console gamers don't have those options, which is why they rely on the developers to address poor matchmaking issues etc.

Andrew's post linked to Infinity Ward's patch to adjust lag compensation code issues for low pingers. Treyarch denied there was a problem and said the code had always been the same. Both companies said they would rather you got into "any game", than have to wait ten minutes for the "right game. A little consistency is required.

If you are going to struggle against high pingers in every game, why be penalised when hosting. It's the only game that you will not be at a disadvantage. Why put the host at a disadvantage to eleven other players? Is that fairer than eleven other players not being able to kill only one player, the host?

It's plainly a nonsense approach.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Fix 1.07 for MW3 - did this help anyone?

http://callofduty-8-modernwarfare-3.com/modern-warfa...

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3-pc/...

Putting the low latency, high bandwidth users at a disadvantage is poor coding in my book. Yes compensation to level the field, but ssems it may have gone too far, and poor server browser/matching make it worse.

Your link to the Electronic Rts forum had some interesting stuff toward the end. I haven't played BF3 since a couple of weeks after release so I might give it a go again and see. I've heard about the "double kill" type event, where the server realises the discrepancy and awards a kill to both players. That has to better than the continual deaths and respawns on the old system. I'm not overly confident mind.

As for MW3, the 1.07 patch may have worked a little. It has become marginally playable, but it's still pretty pointless for a proactive player such as myself. Taking objectives is still virtually impossible and camping or sniping really isn't my bag.

This is where counter strike used to have very good netcode. It felt right when playing and gave low ping players an advantage. Most people have adsl or better now rather than mostly being on modems in the early days of counter strike , people only get high ping by joining server that are a long distance away or using a cheapo ISP. Compensating to even things up for high ping players is a waste of time and ruins game play.

In reply to a post by darkhorizon472:

This is where counter strike used to have very good netcode. It felt right when playing and gave low ping players an advantage. Most people have adsl or better now rather than mostly being on modems in the early days of counter strike , people only get high ping by joining server that are a long distance away or using a cheapo ISP. Compensating to even things up for high ping players is a waste of time and ruins game play.

I couldn't agree more. If it actually worked I wouldn't mind but it is clearly flawed.

As I say, why move the issue onto the guy who is paying for the quality connection, which gives the rest a buttery smooth experience?

Because.... is it ok to rip into stupid PLAY NOW matching making of a certain mw2? If so that is what I would accuse of being the reason behind this stupid reasoning, to appease the masses with dumbed down features.

For the Playstation generation

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Because.... is it ok to rip into stupid PLAY NOW matching making of a certain mw2? If so that is what I would accuse of being the reason behind this stupid reasoning, to appease the masses with dumbed down features.

Absolutely. That's my theory anyway.