^^-AEnubis- said:Yeah, the more I hear about this the more oxymoronic it get's. Why would you defend something designed to make a connection "feel better" if it requires a good connection, and jacked up server to use? Theoretically, if the server is that much better then the average server anyways, it shouldn't need it.
FL - IL ~50ms
Raffi_B said: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.
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: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.
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.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.
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.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.
Sir_Brizz said: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.
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.
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.
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.
So basically, to summarize, from the small set of circumstances it is designed for, or works well in
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: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 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.*edit Hell even now some people still manage to complain about 20 or 30 ms ping differences. It's rediculous.
*edit Hell even now some people still manage to complain about 20 or 30 ms ping differences. It's rediculous.
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: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.
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.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.
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.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.
Brizz said: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.
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.
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.
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.Even WITH newnet, that kind of problem is not relaxed.
85 to chicago, 65 to texas, and 110-120 to the west coast. THAT was drastic.