Quite rewarding innit? Felling trees. Timber!

Safety hazard trees are. On another note, the jeeps in BF4 are hazardous too as they have a habit of exploding if you drive into things that normally don't cause you any kind of damage at all. Things like bollards and rocks. It's all a bit silly really.

I noticed your gold, silver and bronze medal count was pretty good for someone who'd only played the game 100 odd hours. Mind you, I used to mainly play 64 player servers and it was hard getting a top rated place at the end of a round. Toady's right that 64 players is kind of stupid really as it's just too hectic really. I think 48 is the maximum (enjoyably) playable for the map sizes we've got really. Still, I'd love to play some of the maps with 128 players just to see what it was like in action. Preferably without any aircraft!

I don't like it when a tank gets stopped in its tracks by something as stupid as a park bench

Your Score Per Minute is higher than mine. Not sure what size servers I played on, probably smaller numbers as I don't like too many players and being spec ops you need to be sneaky, which is easier with less players

Well a bollard and a rock are pretty hard things to drive into, any jeep would take damage but their are issues with the vehicles they slide around too much.

64 players its not hard to finish top, just good teamwork with revives and holding points you dont even need that many kills.

128 players would be cool to see in BF4 but what Dice would have to limit in game to make it play smooth, take Planetside 2 the visuals are nice but kept simple to ensure gameplay for 100's of players.

As for good looking pc games, the crysis series has always been good but the best example would be Skyrim and the community graphic improvments as they really make the game breathtaking.

I don't think you understand that on console (and likely on PC too, to a certain degree) finishing top is down to a blatant latency advantage that everybody else in the game knows you have ccxo, except yourself. It is extremely irritating when people make comments like this without acknowledging the fact that it is happening.

It is an obvious but unspoken truth that developers won't admit too publicly in fear of harming sales, but I can assure you that matchmaking is based on getting games populated quickly, not fairly. If you fit the average latency bracket (whatever that is) you will get by. If you don't the game is a joke. COD is the same only slightly less frustrating due to the small frenetic nature of the maps and a quick turnaround after death.

I am a very capable gamer ccxo, but Battlefield is still fundamentally latency biased and always has been. Knowing that the game will discriminate against purchaser and then simply claiming that Internet connections are difficult to predict is a cop out. The game should match latency properly, even if that means taking longer to populate.

Yeah last night was a prime example of a great looking game ruined by online lag that made it unplayable for both me and Nelly last night.

I shall test it again later tonight but based on last night there would be little to no point keeping a game like Battlefield 4 that you can not play online.

I'm sure i have been in other online matches and did not encounter the same laggy mess as last night,it could have been server/Psn Issues so more testing is needed.

So is the issue you have with latency that you have a low ping but are put together with people with higher pings ? Don't even know how you can check your ping in game on console but I remember it was always shown in PC games and people were obsessed with it.

It is amazingly easy to skid a tank...

Edited by deleted (Sat 14-Dec-13 12:57:36)

That's right mate. And no you can't tell the difference in latency other than the "five bar" nonsense. Last night I stood in front of people and emptied magazines without even one hit marker appearing. Terrible

Timey watched me streaming Resogun last night then we had a few games. I'm sure he will vouch for how capable my reactions are. I am the cat after all.

Then we moved to BF4 and I straight off went 0 - 18. I think Timey went 1 - 12 or something similar, but he only got that kill saving my bacon (cheers bro!). Then he went beddy byes (lightweight) and I stayed on for another game ending 2 - 15, the two being point blank rocket launcher kills because guns won't give me a hit marker. It is utter pants mate, but you have to understand it is connection biased. If you have not had problems in the past you likely won't now. But for those of us that have, it's same [censored], different day.

It even made Toadys high pingers videos look desirable.

Yeah, I hear ya. Park benches on metro.

Hadn't realised my spm was ever so slightly higher than yours. My deaths per round are quite a bit higher too!

Yeah, playing on less crowded/smaller servers was definitely a better experience. Far more rewarding. I used to play as Spec Ops initially for the first couple-a-hundred hours. Then I discovered the G36C and E and fell in love.

Being unsure of a level playing field is something of a nightmare in these online shooter games. I wouldn't know where to begin with trying to determine if my own game was suffering due to latency/jitter-type issues or whatever the hell it is.

I can tell you right enough that there are still bugs regarding hit boxes. There was an infamous one where the damage from single hits would be awarded multiple times. I know I've had that happen before. And then there's the really annoying bug of frame latency whereby you appear to die when you're not even in direct line of fire of an enemy fighter, say ducking back behind the wall you're hiding behind (Operation Locker) but getting shot as it takes so many frames for the hits to register (totally out of synch with the visuals). That's annoying. You think you're safe then wham!

So, to compensate for hit accuracy somewhat and the fact the enemy player is likely hopping around I used to just left-right-left-right shoot if you follow me and aim for the head but this was in BF2. It used to work so much better but I'm unsure if it holds true with this game. There are no doubt plenty of strategies to adopt and CCXO's one true piece of advice is Battlefield rewards players working alongside one another but that's an impossible task if people aren't doing that already. Most of the time squad mates just go off on little outings of their own completely ignoring any objectives. There's loads of strategies for making points and getting kills; most of them have nothing to do with skill but simple exploitation of game mechanics.

On PC, we get a full numerical latency readout. Numbers! I play in the US too. Couldn't say if it helps or not: sometimes I will do really well and other games I won't. Judging Swanny's and my own BF2 player stats I would say we're similarly balanced players though he tended to finish far higher than me in a round (number of players potentially). I think score-per-minute is probably a good metric for judging a player's contribution to the game; it's not all about the kill. Hope you have fun regardless of the poor latency Mr Nels mate. Amazed Timey actually came in useful other than as a bullet sponge. I'd love to join you both I really would. It would be great to have Trance, Toady, Lt Swanny and others on our side too.