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.
I love how this appears to be working out (nb i didn't read the article, i'm a gamer not a scientist.. well i am but not in UT netcode) it sounds like:
a) Newnet was meant for high performance serves.
b) the only high performance servers you're likely to find are at the extreme end of privately funded servers
c) chances are, if you're using those servers, the connection to those servers are fine anyway.
Ergo, In order to use newnet happily without so many duds then you should be on a high performance connection to a high performance server that reduces the necessary skill and increases the cost of gaming itself.
Ha! Irony?
Morale of it all: Let's hope that the 2k7 code's a good bit cleaner than the previous incarnations and reduces duds. With increased system specs and connection bandwidths there should be less need for interpolation, and the weapon balance should be adjusted to compensate for higher tickrates and lower pings.
a) Newnet was meant for high performance serves.
b) the only high performance servers you're likely to find are at the extreme end of privately funded servers
c) chances are, if you're using those servers, the connection to those servers are fine anyway.
Ergo, In order to use newnet happily without so many duds then you should be on a high performance connection to a high performance server that reduces the necessary skill and increases the cost of gaming itself.
Ha! Irony?
Morale of it all: Let's hope that the 2k7 code's a good bit cleaner than the previous incarnations and reduces duds. With increased system specs and connection bandwidths there should be less need for interpolation, and the weapon balance should be adjusted to compensate for higher tickrates and lower pings.
^^-AEnubis- said:
This is what I have been thinking too.
My question then is: Is the purpose of newnet to provide a smoother feel for players seperated by great distance when playing on a high-end server?
Other than that scenario, it seems pretty oxymoronic and useless to me too. I usually have a good ping to the servers I play on and have only seen a few dud shots when UTComp is on. I don't think most of the servers I have played at were using the newnet though.
A great server doesn't mean that everyone will have low pings. I could put a supercomputer in its own super-fast datacenter in australia but my ping would still be crap. Most pro TDM clans (such as the one Lotus is in) have their own high-tick servers, but the members might all be geographically far apart. I would imagine that newnet helps resolve that difference and wasn't designed to make a normal server feel like a pro high-tick server.
That's what I would have guessed. If your ping to the best servers there was 85 or higher, I'm pretty sure that you would feel very differently about enhanced netcode.
And for those over-dramatizing the 'great connection/great server' thing, keep in mind that pretty much any server that's used for competition will have a 35 tick (heck, TWL even mandated that the servers have 35 tick to be eligible) so it's not like they're so amazingly rare. Relatively pl free connections aren't rare either.
Enhanced netcode has its issues, but it does an absolutely incredible job of levelling the playing field (not to completely level, but close enough to play) when you're dealing with a 50 vs. 80 or even 50 vs. 100 ping. Under stock netcode, those are really not playable differences, but with enhanced netcode, they are.
So if you're one of those people with 50 or less ping to Chicago and TX, keep in mind that there are a lot of people on the West coast and in Canada who simply wouldn't be able to compete on anything *close* to a level playing field without enhanced netcode.
Raffi_B said:
That sounds like a "yes" to my question above.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to knock newnet. Like I said I don't have much experience with it, or if servers were running it I didn't notice much. I am just trying to understand what the purpose of it is, and if it is being used in the wrong situations sometimes. Just like you don't try to get good gas-mileage out of a race-car.
I ping around 20-45 to Chicago. I likely haven't seen the kind of situations where it would really help out.
Last edited:
Dude, I'm in a far corner of this country/continent (since there aren't many game servers in mexico). You really are barking up the wrong tree about geographical location. It's prolly reason #2 I wasn't in a UT clan.
So you are also talking to someone who plays on west coast servers with 85 pings, and has no problem with it. My problem lately isn't ping difference. I'd probably play compaint free with up to a 40ms disadvantage. Maybe a bit more if I have no loss. Smooth latency is easy to deal with. Under the circumstances he is talking about, smooth server with sharp geographical differences, that's not a problem. If I can get 8 hops to LA in 85ms with no loss because the server is configed properly, I don't need newnet. Hell, I think 16 would be good for what I usually get. Only places I really can't play is NoCal, and anything further north.
I do feel however that there should be a minimum ping instated in this game, due to effects on weapon balance. My main problem with newnet is instead of sticking with how the game is balanced, and leveling the ground accordingly, it ignores balances and tries to bring everyone out of it, and level it that way. I didn't want to change the subject, but if you try to "sell me newnet" and tell me I'd be singing a different tune "under different circumstances" then maybe you need to open some locked threads and re-read some of my posts. I don's dislike newnet becuase I'm not competeing in a clan. It's almost quite the opposite.
So basically, to summarize, from the small set of circumstances it is designed for, or works well in, I would still feel it is the wrong approach to fixing a problem, and that this is yet another comp feature that UT has a fix for already, but apparently isn't good enough for competitive players.
So you are also talking to someone who plays on west coast servers with 85 pings, and has no problem with it. My problem lately isn't ping difference. I'd probably play compaint free with up to a 40ms disadvantage. Maybe a bit more if I have no loss. Smooth latency is easy to deal with. Under the circumstances he is talking about, smooth server with sharp geographical differences, that's not a problem. If I can get 8 hops to LA in 85ms with no loss because the server is configed properly, I don't need newnet. Hell, I think 16 would be good for what I usually get. Only places I really can't play is NoCal, and anything further north.
I do feel however that there should be a minimum ping instated in this game, due to effects on weapon balance. My main problem with newnet is instead of sticking with how the game is balanced, and leveling the ground accordingly, it ignores balances and tries to bring everyone out of it, and level it that way. I didn't want to change the subject, but if you try to "sell me newnet" and tell me I'd be singing a different tune "under different circumstances" then maybe you need to open some locked threads and re-read some of my posts. I don's dislike newnet becuase I'm not competeing in a clan. It's almost quite the opposite.
So basically, to summarize, from the small set of circumstances it is designed for, or works well in, I would still feel it is the wrong approach to fixing a problem, and that this is yet another comp feature that UT has a fix for already, but apparently isn't good enough for competitive players.
The problem with 35 ticks is not the server but the clients. 35 ticks forces the clients to receive 35 updates every second, and if the client's connection isn't fast enough to receive them, guess what it does? That's right, it drops them. Thus increasing the likelihood you will experience packet loss. This is WORSE with newnet running than on the standard netcode because newnet is not sensitive to packet loss and it's "memory" of the last however many ticks is based upon the server's recollection of where you were at that time on the server. Which introduces the likelihood that you can be killed at a spot you never were, or you can kill someone from a spot they never, or only fleetingly, saw you at. So once again, raising the tickrate only benefits BETTER CONNECTIONS.Nunchuk_Skillz said:
I never heard of Condemned or Horizon or PornStar having any trouble with dealing with those kinds of ping differences in UT2003, and those teams could SHUT DOWN any other team on any server. Why? Because they could adapt. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that many competetive gamers are even MORE whiney now than they were a year ago.
I'm one of those that pings anywhere between 50 and 200 to any server anywhere. I've played newnet in all kinds of situations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir_Brizz said:
That tickrate explanation of TNSe's that Raffi linked in his article gives a good explanation of how clients can adapt for that by adjusting netspeed. Lowering net speed decreases the size of said packets, so a lot of smaller packets can equate to a smaller amount of larger packets, and loss in that scenario will be less impactful, and the only loss you'll experience is in high player/fire count situations like in ONS, or AS. Stuff like goli tank barrles start dissapearing, and what not.
Under most normal competitive situations, there isn't that much stuff going on, so lowered netspeed shouldn't effect your gameplay.
This statement ignores so much that it's almost hard to even address.
First, because those teams were so stacked with talent, of course they could beat lesser teams even with a big ping difference (which they seldom had anyway because they refused to play on servers that were disadvantageous to them).
Second, you seem to be forgetting the *endless* battles over what server would be used for a particular match, especially when those teams faced off against each other, because ping difference makes such a massive amount of difference in this game to who will win when evenly balanced players/teams face off. Enhanced netcode is the only solution I've seen that comes close to solving that.
Third, you might also recognize that a lot of those players are still around and playing and every one of them that I've ever heard anything from greatly favors enhanced netcode over not using it (it's one of the reasons a lot of them refuse to play, or hate to play TAM).
This is a true statement in general, but in practice, 35 tick causes problems for very few people. When we had out own box collocated, we ran our server at 50 tick and everyone *loved* it. Through some testing, we noticed that it started to produce very slight pl for the average connect once we got up to around 60 tick, so we ran it at 50 and teams were constantly asking to borrow our server for matches. 35 tick should cause zero problems for anyone with even an average connect.
Re: AEnubis
lol, are you serious? 50 ping to Chicago and probably... what? 40-50 ping to TX (99% of all competitive servers are located in one of those places) and that's a reason not to be in a clan? There are tons of people in Northern and Southern California that would kill for those pings.
Well, if you were in a clan and were competing against players that are as strong or stronger than you are, I'm pretty certain you would change that opinion pretty quickly. Pubs are one thing, and I'll often play on TAM servers with that high or even a higher ping and do just fine. But when you're competing, you quickly find that there's simply no way that you can compete in this game with a player that's just as good and has a 45 ping when you have 80-85 (or higher).
I totally agree with this. As I said, it's not perfect and is not without problems, but for evening the playing field when people range from 30-80 ping, there really is no other option that comes close to working, and enhanced netcode does a terrific job in my experience. Heck, I was playing with a 115 ping the other night in a scrim on a Chicago server and was actually able to contribute to the team. Without enhanced netcode, it wouldn't have been playable *at all*.
lol bs. Did you ever play them? Probably not, but LoD did for 2k3. They knew they could destroy us without trying, but you know what, yeah they wanted to use servers were they pinged 15 or 20, they didn't want to use our server where they had more than a 40 ping. PS beat us with more than 20 caps on Chrome and Citadel. And it was like that on every ladder we played, every team, ever match was a ping war before we could begin the matches. I don't know where you've bene playing brizz, but it's certainately not on ladder matches.Sir_Brizz said:
*edit Hell even now some people still manage to complain about 20 or 30 ms ping differences. It's rediculous.
Last edited:
I was on tWe and FS for all of 2k3, and I never experienced that. When I was on FS, we played P* and Horizon on the FS server (where they were pinging 50-100) and of course they locked us down and annihilated us. On tWe we had scrims with C and Ci and it was the same way.JohnDoe641 said:lol bs. Did you ever play them? Probably not, but LoD did for 2k3. They knew they could destroy us without trying, but you know what, yeah they wanted to use servers were they pinged 15 or 20, they didn't want to use our server where they had more than a 40 ping. PS beat us with more than 20 caps on Chrome and Citadel. And it was like that on every ladder we played, every team, ever match was a ping war before we could begin the matches. I don't know where you've bene playing brizz, but it's certainately not on ladder matches.
I agree, it's completely stupid. On tWe in 2k3 I never heard of teams whining about ping differences at all. When we had scrims and matches, we just played wherever everyone pinged good, their server or ours. There was no "OMG! EYEZ GAWT 50 PEENGZ NAWT 40!!!!11111one" like I have experienced with EVERY match and scrim in 2k4. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that there are alot more whiney people in the competetive community now than there was then.
The thing is, without enhanced netcode, it's *not* ridiculous. If it were meaningless, people wouldn't argue about it (well a few idjits would, but not the majority of people). But the difference in this game between 50 and 80 ping without enhanced netcode is so huge that teams fought about it all the time before enhanced netcode existed.
And Brizz, I understand that maybe tWe didn't fight about it, but that's largely due to the attitude of tWe, which in my experience was more just about playing and having fun than being competitive. The real problem arises when you look at 2 servers (1 texas and 1 chicago) that both have uneven pings. Without enhanced netcode, the server battles were endless and still would be today. Heck, even in ONS there were huge battles over servers before enhanced netcode came along.
The bottom line is that with 2 evenly matched teams and without enhanced netcode, a 30 ms. difference will very often determine the outcome of the match. With it, the impact of that ping difference is greatly reduced, which is why the overwhelming majority of competitive players prefer it.
Are you kidding? If it's pointless, then OF COURSE ARGUE ABOUT IT. Ever been to ProU? That's exactly how at least half of the posts on there go.Nunchuk_Skillz said:
I wasn't talking about tWe's attitude about it. I was talking about the teams we played against, which were almost never bottom rung teams in 2k3. There simply was not the kind of whining and moaning about pings in 2k3 as there is in 2k4, AND THE NETCODE IN 2k3 WAS WORSE.
I understand what the "problem" is, but I disagree with you on one very important point:
No, no, no, no, no, no. If two teams are so evenly matched that 30 ms is determing the outcome of the game, there is something very wrong with the playing styles of both teams. How do some of the top teams BEFORE NEWNET CAME OUT coordinate between players that have anywhere from 30 to 90ms pings if that difference makes or breaks their game? Even WITH newnet, that kind of problem is not fixed. Even WITH newnet you only relax and not resolve the problem of having many people with a variety of pings.
Being able to adapt to the situation, INCLUDING your ping is a much more valuable skill than aim, movement, or overall playing style. Why? Because you will succeed in all sorts of situations with or without newnet running if you can do that. One of the things that has absolutely made me sick about 2k4 is how EVERYONE whines about their ping. Even the frikkin LPBs with 30-50ms pings to EVERY SERVER IN AMERICA whine about how they have so much latency and the game is unplayable... Cry me a frikkin river.
Last edited by a moderator:
Naa, the more I pactice lately, the less that 30ms effects my LtG. I've been shooting 30%+ on the west coast, and I'd like to think if I was competeing, and had a slight ping disadvantage, compensation could be made with accountance and teamwork. Not to mention, as I said, all this gets thrown out the window IMO as soon as there is one single sub40 ping involved. Then I don't care if my ping is only +10 to theirs at 50, that low of latency destorys balance. The difference isn't my problem, it's breaking the minimum.
When I made that determiniation in 99, my pings to chicago weren't as good as they are now. It' was more of a 50ms spread to each zone, and UT was a much more ping senstivie game.
Then I would ping 40ms to my ISP, 85 to chicago, 65 to texas, and 110-120 to the west coast. THAT was drastic. Now it's only about a 30ms spread from zone to zone. I can deal with that.
Also because of my better pings to said "hubs" where most competition happens, it's no longer a factor for me not being in a clan now. Especially considering I've found servers that split the difference pretty evenly between me and the west coast. MaStur and I were pubbin' around one day, and found a centeral or mountain server where we pinged equally to it at about 60, which is playable IMO. He's in SoCal...
:tup: :tup:
The big problem is people see how this game can be played with high tick, and ping as not a factor, and they all want a piece of the action. The retarded thing is, it really does destory weapon balance, and simplifies the game greatly, to the point I feel it get's boring. Again, I feel a minimum ping would fix said problems, and or adapting the weapon balance for that low of a latency. Most people here might not like that though, what was that organization called... B.A.N.? Guess we could just make the rest of the weapons rediculously more powerful, instead of nerfing the ones who get bigger advantages from low latency....
When I made that determiniation in 99, my pings to chicago weren't as good as they are now. It' was more of a 50ms spread to each zone, and UT was a much more ping senstivie game.
Then I would ping 40ms to my ISP, 85 to chicago, 65 to texas, and 110-120 to the west coast. THAT was drastic. Now it's only about a 30ms spread from zone to zone. I can deal with that.
Also because of my better pings to said "hubs" where most competition happens, it's no longer a factor for me not being in a clan now. Especially considering I've found servers that split the difference pretty evenly between me and the west coast. MaStur and I were pubbin' around one day, and found a centeral or mountain server where we pinged equally to it at about 60, which is playable IMO. He's in SoCal...
Brizz said:
:tup: :tup:
The big problem is people see how this game can be played with high tick, and ping as not a factor, and they all want a piece of the action. The retarded thing is, it really does destory weapon balance, and simplifies the game greatly, to the point I feel it get's boring. Again, I feel a minimum ping would fix said problems, and or adapting the weapon balance for that low of a latency. Most people here might not like that though, what was that organization called... B.A.N.?
Guess we could just make the rest of the weapons rediculously more powerful, instead of nerfing the ones who get bigger advantages from low latency....
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.And imo it's definitely *not* just an attitude thing, as ping really does have a huge impact on the game under the standard netcode.
No, there really isn't. 2k4 is a very hitscan dominant game. That's just the way it is. At 40-50 ping (and no enhanced netcode) you can use hitscan very effectively. At 80+ ping, you won't be nearly as effective with it. When two evenly matched teams play, that can easily be the determining factor and I've seen it happen many times. Now, it's certainly possible to overcome that deficit once in awhile, either by being a lot better team, or just having things go your way, but that 30 ping is a monster advantage. If you're a football fan, I'd say the difference between 50 and 80 ping is worth about a touchdown and a field goal. Simple as that.
Now, you can argue that they should somehow play differently to make up for it, ut there's really not that much you can do except try to pick really small, cramped maps (of which there really aren't many, at least in CTF), and if the other team has picked midsize or larger maps, you're hosed without being able to use hitscan at the same level they are.
Now, I do agree that enhanced netcode makes it an even *more* hitscan dependant game, and I also agree that I don't really like that. But what I do like is that it's at least a lot more evenly balanced, as both the 50 and 80 pingers can use it, rather than 1 side being able to use hitscan effectively and the other being SOL.
I actually find that it's *greatly* relaxed. In fact, that's the whole point of it from what I can see, as we no longer have to say "Okay, Player X has a 95 ping, so he'll have to run O". We can just play people where they naturally prefer to play without having to worry about ping so much.
If you substitute the word East in place of "west" that's exactly what my pings are now, and what they are and will be for every west coast player (at least from Southern California and Arizona) around until some kind of faster Inet is developed. So as I mentioned, a TX server is playable with standard netcode (not great, but playable), whereas a Chicago server vs. a bunch of 40 pingers is really not playable at all without enhanced netcode.
![dXII][Pa](/data/avatars/s/39/39832.jpg?1424422857){kind=avatar}