Maybe the game wouldn't be so hitscan-dominant if people didn't insist on using bright neon glowing skins.
/flamebait
/flamebait
Newnet's dud hitscan shots - A Detailed Explanation
- Thread starter Raffi_B
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Maybe I only played people that weren't whiners, who knows. I do know that people on Horizon and Condemned played consistently with 80ms+ pings in matches AND WERE GOOD.Nunchuk_Skillz said:Well, I'm not sure what made 2k3 so unique, since the same types of arguments happened (and happened frequently, and still happen in MLUT) going back to when I started competing in UT'99 back in 2000, and the top teams/players in 2k3 were all from UT'99, so I'm not sure how they magically changed their tune (and then changed it back for 2k4 prior to enhanced netcode) just while 2k3 was out.
Of course it has an IMPACT, but I disagree that it has more of an impact in terms of acquired skill than movement, aim, or any number of other things. It's just something you learn to cope with and get good around regardless of.
There really is. Being able to adapt to changes in environment, ping, and even unfamiliar levels are all things that many competetive players would rather go without. The really GOOD players do the same in all kinds of scenaris, including varieties of more than 30-40ms ping differences. If I were football fan, I'd say that 30ms ping difference is more similar to a player that can play well in a light drizzle and a downpour, versus a player that is okay in light drizzle but completely sucks in a downpour.
50-80 ping is the worst comparison you can make, because those numbers are incredibly low. Low enough to the point where anyone can perform just fine at those numbers. A more dramatic difference, and what should be newnet's purpose, is to balance pings between 50 and 150, which it does not. This is one reason I find newnet very frustrating. On servers where I happen to ping 150, I am constantly being killed by invisible projectiles, and hitscan whether it be from lightning, shock, minispam, or link. Essentially, your argument is that newnet should let LPBs who are hitscan whores to be the best hitscan whores they can be, which is not how newnet is presented, nor why it is running on 99% of CTF, TDM, and DM servers running right now.
I don't think that kind of difference makes a difference in any kind of play. On tWe we won a number of matches where I was playing on a lossy microwave connection through wifi, gettng 30% packet loss and with a 150+ ping. I played the position I wanted to, and I was effective at it. That's why I say that playing with different varieties of ping is an ACQUIRED SKILL. Movement prediction is still required from attacker to attackee whether your ping difference is 10 or 100, or whether newnet is running or not.
Snuggins said:
:tup: :tup:
It also wasn't as hit-scan dominant at the average ping when the lightning gun first hit retail shelves. We've all known how to use hit-scan from prior games, it had nothing to do with us "learning it."
I don't think that either side is really deaf to the other, I just think they don't really argue about what it is they are arguing about.
The explanation for the dud shots is nice and all, but it's not as though it's anyones only reason for not likeing comp, or newnet. Most times it's a list of things, and a lot of them just boil down to opinion.
Me for example, you can state all the "facts" about newnet you want, it's still not going to change the fact that it's goal of simulating LAN is not in accordance with how the weapons are currently balanced, even if I forget about false negative, false positives, dud shots, and ping disadvantages. Much in the same way I feel visual acuity is a skill that shouldn't be eliminated by mutator, and that there are certain situations where it is balanced that you don't know exactly how much damage you've done to an opponent.
If all they wanna worry about it 2d point and click, and clock watching, then so be it. They can play their game, and I'll play mine.
Of course, there's always the fact that people will blame something, usually something outwith their control, for not succeeding like they should.
) "OMGZ U SHOT ME, PINGZ!"
) "PL SUCKS" *headshot* "OMG I CAN'T PLAY LAG"
) *person gets shot* "OMGZ AIMBOT LAG PL"
) Oh, and racism.
) "OMGZ U SHOT ME, PINGZ!"
) "PL SUCKS" *headshot* "OMG I CAN'T PLAY LAG"
) *person gets shot* "OMGZ AIMBOT LAG PL"
) Oh, and racism.
Well, you'd be right if you said that a 30ms ping difference is like one player playing in the rain while the guy he's playing against has a nice dry field to play on. If it's raining for both of them, then the guy who can adapt better will win. But if one guy has the dry field (i.e. 50 ping) and the other guy has the wet one (i.e. 80 ping) and they're of equal skill level, who do you think will win more often than not?
No, it's not. This is the difference that I see all the time in competitive play, and it's the difference that teams fight over all the time because there's a line there where the difference is absolutely critical. Anything 50 and below plays fantastic, while anything 80 and above plays horrible (at least when compared with the 50 and below crowd). That's what newnet mitigates, and that's where it really has been a godsend to the competitive community.
Now, in practice, I've found that UTComp does a good job of compensating up until about 100-110 ping. Anything above that and there's really nothing that can be done, especially with something as high as the 150 ping that you mentioned. But in the competitive world, I don't think I've seen 1 player with 150 ping (or even anything over 120 ping) in about 5 years of playing that wasn't on 56k.
lol, okay. Maybe if you were running O and warping all over the place so that no one could hit you, but there's absolutely no way you can play this game effectively with 150 ping and 30% pl. If you guys were playing the worst scrubs ever and could beat them 4v5 anyway, then fine. But if you were playing a decent team, you'd get raped with that connection, so please don't go on about how well you adapted to it.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this and I wasn't really trying to change your opinion, since it seems set in stone. I was just giving my opinion from the practical standpoint of having played hundreds of matches without it and now probably a hundred matches with it, rather than focusing on the technical points of what it actually does.
Take care!
I don't think it's anything like that at all. It's more like one gu having better cleats than the other guy. In reality, it doesn't make a huge difference if your cleats are better, if the other person knows how his play and feel on wet grass he can still outdo you.Nunchuk_Skillz said:
That's because that is what people whine about. In reality, if you can adapt to your situation well, it shouldn't matter what your ping is as long as it is sub-100 and you have no packet loss.
Quite untrue
No, I've always played strictly Defense. At any rate, the example was only to show how well you can do when you adapt to your situation. I did get beat alot on that connection, but I also did really well. The funny thing about it is that there were a number of people in 2k3 that didn't like playing against me on a regular connection without packet loss because I would regular obliterate them. So yes, Packet loss does make a difference, but I don't think that 30ms of ping does.lol, okay. Maybe if you were running O and warping all over the place so that no one could hit you, but there's absolutely no way you can play this game effectively with 150 ping and 30% pl. If you guys were playing the worst scrubs ever and could beat them 4v5 anyway, then fine. But if you were playing a decent team, you'd get raped with that connection, so please don't go on about how well you adapted to it.
My argument is How can anyone NOT have played on newnet that much? If you play any of the core gametypes (CTF, DM, TDM) almost every server has newnet running. So how can anyone say "You haven't played enough with newnet on."? Everytime I've played the game over the past 6 months has been with newnet running.
My problem is that I know it from both aspects. But as was reported earlier, people believe only what they want to believe. Why else would newnet be as prevalent as it is now?
lol, so the only explanation for people disagreeing with you is that they're wrong?
Keep in mind that all those top players that favor enhanced netcode (which is why it's mandatory on every ladder for the core game types) also had a great deal of experience on both sides and they've opted in favor of enhanced netcode. You might imagine that they're all sheep or all delusional or whatever, but I (and I'm sure they) would disagree. Maybe it's just that what's important to them is just different from what's important to you(?)
I haven't said that, but I was also talking about actual competitive matches, not pubs where you have all kinds of random people joining from any and everywhere. And in those match situations where you have fixed teams, a very even level of play, etc., etc., that's where that ping difference comes into play.
Again, you might imagine that everyone is imagining that it makes a difference when it really doesn't, but with my experiences playing matches under exactly those circumstances over the years, you're going to have a hard time convincing me (and most other competitive players) that we've all been imagining things all these years.
I was talking about from a technical standpoint and from playing with it very often, not from playing with it on or off. And of course newnet would be favored over the standard netcode, your chances of survival are better due to the higher rate of miscalculation with newnet running.Nunchuk_Skillz said:lol, so the only explanation for people disagreeing with you is that they're wrong?
You might imagine that they're all sheep or all delusional or whatever, but I (and I'm sure they) would disagree. Maybe it's just that what's important to them is just different from what's important to you(?)
On top of that, the majority of competetive players have no choice but to be sheep. If TWL, for example, declares newnet mandatory, then you can't play in that league without newnet running. Of course it is a difference of opinion, and I'm not saying that anyone is "wrong" about newnet. All I'm saying is that I prefer the way the game plays, feels, and acts without newnet running. If, through my explanation of my opinion, even one person realizes how awful newnet is, I have done what I intended to do. Which, for the sake of non-argument, is to educate people about how newnet works technically or otherwise.
I still don't agree, but, aside from that, this argument makes no sense. Again, this is saying that newnet is designed for and strictly for the use of high-end, top performance servers and players who already have similar pings. That is not how newnet is presented nor used.
If newnet was only on locked clan servers with high tickrates, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. As it stands right now, it is on just about every CTF/TDM/DM server on the Master Server List.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. There is no way to convince someone that what they've been believing forever is just a figment of their imagination. I have never, ever, ever encountered two teams that were so evenly matched that 30ms of ping made a difference in the outcome of the game. The team members who were playing, the maps that were chosen, and the general map knowledge of the players has a far more severe impact on a match than anything else. I UTV'd matches between |C| and [P*] several times, and even they were more susceptible to playing conditions than ping every time they played, and they were consistently the top two teams in the ladders.Again, you might imagine that everyone is imagining that it makes a difference when it really doesn't, but with my experiences playing matches under exactly those circumstances over the years, you're going to have a hard time convincing me (and most other competitive players) that we've all been imagining things all these years.
I still don't see your proof that newnet "miscalculates" just because things might look off... All Raffi said was that higher tick servers look like they should as opposed to a lower tick server where dud shots happen a lot due to interpolation.
How can you proove it? Ping, Packet loss, and all the other wonders of netplay are a nearly incontrollable variable. You can't play the "exact same game" twice under different ping/mutator circumstances to proove it, so it's really not about proof, it's all about theory, and logisticis.
That is why there is no conclusion. The bottom line is it plays/feels different in a majority of circumstances than stock 2k4. To the point where it feels like your playing a different game. I like 2k4, so I play 2k4, not newnet.
Hence the phrase "netcoder than you." GG Spineh.
That is why there is no conclusion. The bottom line is it plays/feels different in a majority of circumstances than stock 2k4. To the point where it feels like your playing a different game. I like 2k4, so I play 2k4, not newnet.
Hence the phrase "netcoder than you." GG Spineh.
I didn't say there was visual "proof" that it happens.Turns2Ashes said:
But play on a high tickrate server and you will notice shots that should connect do not on occasion still and shots that should not connect do on occasion still. Projectiles still disappear. Depending on your connection quality, these thigns will get even worse, because the higher the ticks the worse packet loss is at lower rates. I.e., a tick of 15 with 3% packet loss isn't as awful as a tick of 35 with 3% packet loss.
Huh? I'm not sure what game you're playing, but it's much easier to connect with newnet running (hence, why people shoot higher LG & shock primary percentages and why people complain about the game being more hitscan dominant). Again, I'd prefer it didn't make the game even more hitscan dominant, but I'll take it for the tradeoff of a more balanced playing field.
Actually, the only reason newnet was brought in in the first place was because competitive players insisted on it. As I recall, there was a poll, people had their say, and newnet was preferred by a *huge* margin. It definitely wasn't something that TWL just pulled out of a hat and decided to force on people (and not coincidentally, it's also used at GGL and nearly every other competitive community).
Fair enough.
Really? Keep in mind that it's not called UTPub. It's called UTComp because it's a competitive mutator for 2k4 and *every* feature in it was designed for competition. Just because people have put it on pubs doesn't mean that it was originally created or presented for anything but the competitive community.
Well, I have.
There's a reason why servers aren't even eligible for use in competition if the average team pings differ by more than 30ms (and that's on every ladder going back to PG and OGL in UT'99). The term "ping rape" is also one that every competitive player knows, and there's a reason for that, as well.And beyond that, I've also seen plenty of matches that took 2 hours to start, or that didn't end up getting played at all over arguments about which server to use solely because of ping difference. That just doesn't happen nearly as much since newnet came into the picture.
Well, that's a judgement from your perspective as someone that was watching, not playing. And those teams didn't have the option of playing with or without newnet. If they had the choice, I'm quite certain they would have elected to use it, since a lot of those players are still around and not one of them has spoken out against newnet from what I've seen.
Also, I realize that ProU is sort of the Wild West of forums and always has been, but it's still the home of competitive UT and 2k4 players and if you started a poll there about whether people prefer newnet or not, I'd say the number who prefer newnet would be quite a bit north of 90%.
Now, if you want to limit your arguments strictly to what should be used or what you'd like to see used on pubs, I'd say "okay". But the competitive community clearly wants it and prefers it newnet, and for anyone (especially anyone outside that community) to assume it's just because they're clueless or suffering some kind of mass delusion just makes zero sense.
Last edited:
That's my point exactly. How do you know which shots should and should not connect? That's all based on your perception of what's happening on the server, and that's not necessarily what's really happening.Sir_Brizz said:
I'm not gonna argue that newnet changes the game, because I know it does, but I'm confused because it seems you're basing some, if not all, of your whole arguement on the fact that shots "look" off. That's hardly reason to discredit UTComp and bash it in every thread it's mentioned.
I don't know you've paid attention enough to notice that while the game might be more hitscan prevalent on newnet it's also more flak friendly. Flak spawns further out than it should, making it easier to kill people with it because they either don't see the projectiles at all or don't have enough time to dodge it like they normal would. Maybe hitscan did get more powerful, but so did flak.
Packet loss does have a huge effect on newnet, and packet loss is the sole reason I won't play Nereid 1v1 even though he's offered a lot. He always has constant 2-4 packet loss and a 90-100 ping, so not only does he warp around from the packet loss so I can't hit him, but half the time I can't see his hitscan shots, and because of his highish ping I can't react to his flak at all.
It sounds like now you're focusing more on the fact that server admins are forcing newnet on average servers rather than the fact that the code itself is hugely flawed like you were before. I wouldn't blame newnet for that, but rather the server admins.Sir_Brizz said:
I agree with you in the fact that if something works optimally in certain situations, it should only be used in those situations. I don't think people using newnet on a server hosted on their cable connection is a good idea (yet it occurs frequently *cough*nereid*cough*)
As for the "good people in ut2k3 could play with newnet off so it isn't needed" statement, you're ignoring the fact that skill level has greatly increased since then. For example, the top dueler at the time was fatal1ty. At E3, Lauke played fatal1ty and won 11-1, and now Lauke is being beaten by people better than him. As people get better, they generally have much higher demands for performance. The good clans in 2k3 were generally good in UT1, where really good performance was harder to achieve (in terms of smoothness, responsiveness, etc.)
Also, a 100 ping in UT1 was considered good. The times have changed, and now most of the top players now consider 100 ping unplayable, and it's not because they can't adapt (I assure you they can) but rather because the way the game is played now, it is impossible to win with that ping. The skill level keeps increasing and increasing.
No but that is the focus of this particular argument. Sick SolidSnake on the Utcomp code for a technical review, and you'd find out how awful it was written. The fact that all newnet does is attempt to re-replicate replication is probably the worst denigration of a slightly prediction based system you can get. It is server admins fault that newnet is on their servers, however UTcomp and newnet are presented to the server admin community as if they are the be all and end all of UT2004 mutators, which makes it hard to find the kind of game I want to play online.Raffi_B said:
perhaps, but I don't remember fatal1ty complaining that he got ping raped
I don't buy the skill argument. I don't think skill levels are any different by percentage than they were in 2k3, I'm fully confident cursiv could pull Horizon back together and be the top CTF team in N.A. with or without newnet. That's because raw skill and adaptation are leaps and bounds above a 30ms ping difference.If we were talking something more drastic, like the difference between 30ms and 100ms I would be more inclined to agree with you, but at 100ms you already begin to notice the little inconsistencies that newnet has at higher pings. You know that I regularyl ping sub-100 on Vipers, but I ALWAYS get invisible projectiles, and I ALWAYS get disconnected hits. Anyone can demo themselves with newnet running and notice little problems that newnet has, alot of things in Netcoder are exactly how newnet works. You can often completely miss someone (with your crosshair never crossing paths with them) and get a headshot and kill them. You can often shoot at someone with your crosshair right on them with neither of you moving and miss. This is because of the way it has to work, the only way it can work, without having access to the C++ Headers.
T2A: Regarding the flak, that's part of the reason invisible projectiles occur. You're hit by them where they were spawned, even if you are several hundred uu's away from the person shooting them.
Last edited by a moderator:
As Sir Brizz said that's wrong. Somewhere 1 month ago I played FragBU at Viper's on dial-up and had ping of 320. At first I did not noticed that Enh. Netcode is enabled serverside and used "weapons of mass destruction" - Flak, RL and Bio. When at last I noticed that enhanced netcode is enabled I decided to give it a try and was able to hit opponents quite often. At that momnet I had netspeed set to smth around 2700-3000
He only played on LAN, so that would be a tough sell.
I agree with you totally there. imo the actual skill level overall hasn't changed very much, and any terrific fps player or team could do equally well with or without newnet. So yea, if you want to bring back a stacked team like Horizon, or even HV from the UT'99 days, they're still going to be great teams.
But that doesn't say anything at all about newnet, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. I think you're trying to say that they'd adapt to having a 30 ping deficit and still win, but that's a pointless statement because a) you're not talking about even teams, since they're so stacked, and b) Cursive would almost never allow his team to play with a ping deficit anyway (gee, wonder why...).
A more meaningful question would be: if Cursive's team had a 30ms ping disadvantage against a team that presented even a minor threat against his team, would he be okay without using newnet, or would he insist on newnet?
I happen to know for a fact that he'd insist on newnet, because I played him right around the time that newnet was coming onto the scene and he flat out refused to play on our server without newnet because we had a 10ms (yes, 10ms) ping advantage on them (even though they were obviously the stronger team). Instead, he *insisted* on playing on their Chicago server where they had a 30ms advantage because it had newnet.
So if you're going to keep bringing up old teams that were good, please at least apply it to the discussion in a meaningful way. And the only way to do that is to either think about 2 evenly matched teams and a ping disadvantage to one of them and how newnet would or wouldn't affect the outcome, *or* to think about whether the disadvantaged team (in terms of ping) would prefer to play with or without newnet.