EA Lag Compensation Deep Dive
Per EA Deep Dive article for Apex Legends, copied and pasted below - written by Samy (Ricklesauceur): https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/servers-netcode-developer-deep-dive (note lag compen...
Forum Discussion
@ATFGunr
Yes it is!.....but somehow they think otherwise..and that leave us with the question again...Why!.
@Mackstan71 Cost. I’ve determined it always comes down to cost. Don’t tell them, but I’d be willing to pay for better servers. If only there was a way of renting servers….
@ATFGunrServer costs would be less of an issue for Dice/EA if they allowed players to rent dedicated servers. Seems like a win-win...
@doubleomeMarketing sold a product concept in the original BF official trailer that simply was not easily coded into existence for 128 player servers across five platforms across the entire globe...especially not after having 3-4 months of development time destroyed by the pandemic...
If marketing majors had to have coding experience, and software engineers had to have marketing experience, game development would be much more realistic and profitable...The simplest way to put it is that the tie goes to the high ping player (due to lag comp) every time.
They get the advantage even if the low ping player updated the server first. The server waits for the data from the high ping player, then compensates for the difference + buffer, then sends the results to both players.
That is why the low ping player gets a bunch of hits but not a kill, then feels like they are killed instantly once the server waited and then sent out the update.
The 45Hz server tick rate doesn't help. A 60Hz tick rate would send and receive more updates so the server wouldn't wait as long for the high ping player's data. This wouldn't fix everything but it would feel a little tighter.
Also, like @Oskool_007 said in the other thread, 60 is broken down evenly further (60/30/15) before it is fractional compared to 45 (45/22.5/11.25) which can't get broken down any further so there is almost always desync going on in the computations both on the server and client because frames never align up properly.
- @DeepSixxxxThe three dots in my posts may have been too subtle lol. The clan I’m in used to rent servers from 1942 on. We still have 1942 servers haha, we have some real die hards. Starting with BF1 they killed the rentable servers and they’ve been a “legacy” feature since. We would have rented at least two servers for all the games since if we’d been able. We always had one running Conquest, and the other we would change up with Rush or Gunmaster. We’d also use it for event like Friendly Fire Fridays or other silliness. I’d play a ton on AOD, TGB, SoC, etc. They’ve pulled BF players out of Clans with their choices.
@ATFGunr wrote:
@DeepSixxxxThe three dots in my posts may have been too subtle lol. The clan I’m in used to rent servers from 1942 on. We still have 1942 servers haha, we have some real die hards. Starting with BF1 they killed the rentable servers and they’ve been a “legacy” feature since. We would have rented at least two servers for all the games since if we’d been able. We always had one running Conquest, and the other we would change up with Rush or Gunmaster. We’d also use it for event like Friendly Fire Fridays or other silliness. I’d play a ton on AOD, TGB, SoC, etc. They’ve pulled BF players out of Clans with their choices.^^^^100% This^^^^
It was bad idea to alienate Clans/Platoons in the Battlefield series and you're right that process to shut them out started with BF1.
BFf2042 has done damn near anything it can to stop friends from actually being able to play together, from lack of a server browser, no persistent servers, no squad management and limiting party size to four just FOUR people!
- @DeepSixxxx And I guess that shows the problem marketing doesnt need coding knowledge and visa versa. Its the job of leads/directors/managers to create a team with a common goal and allow a space where impossible goals can be met with critisism internally. I agree if either department is lacking quality people the whole thing could suffer especially if they try to compensate with marketing.
I posted this in another thread but I feel like one of a couple things happen in a gunfight for me...I get killed almost instantly. After the first hit when I try to move, I "feel" the input lag, and then I'm dead. OR I drop the first few shots on target and then stop getting hits and end up dead with the enemy having somewhere around 56% or exactly 56% health. Happens far, far too often to be coincidence. I've also noticed a LOT of times when I die in the second scenario, I'm thinking, "There were two/three/more team mates shooting, why did we NOT get him?" And then I start to realize, by the time the "killer" cam shows up, the enemy is dead. Again, happens far, far, FAR too often to be coincidence. Is this a product of the bad net code? Perhaps you actually got the kill, but the net code doesn't register it until it gets overwhelmed by the incoming rounds from other players?
It's really got me scratching my head and pulling my hair.
Featured Places
