Forum Discussion

Re: What do you accept of max latency to server and other players?

Which is better for gaming 30ms WIFI 5G(fibre), 40ms ethernet 100/10(mobile data)  or 100ms Ethernet 1G(fibre)?

The 100ms. It is not just latency the tail ends are import, just as much as the internet infrastructure.  I played at 100ms on Japanese servers it felt bad for me.  100ms to Singapore servers was fine. 

Noone should use wireless for non-mobile games. This causes so much problems at both end. So many blame the 100+ms guy when they themselves use WIFI or Mobile data which reduce speed based on the number of connection and what they are doing.  

This is why restricting ping is not right. 

7 Replies

  • CyberDyme's avatar
    CyberDyme
    5 years ago

    @DingoKillr wrote:

    Which is better for gaming 30ms WIFI 5G(fibre), 40ms ethernet 100/10(mobile data)  or 100ms Ethernet 1G(fibre)?

    The 100ms. It is not just latency the tail ends are import, just as much as the internet infrastructure.  I played at 100ms on Japanese servers it felt bad for me.  100ms to Singapore servers was fine. 

    Noone should use wireless for non-mobile games. This causes so much problems at both end. So many blame the 100+ms guy when they themselves use WIFI or Mobile data which reduce speed based on the number of connection and what they are doing.  

    This is why restricting ping is not right. 


    I think I get your point @DingoKillr ,

    Though with regards to your experience with aka a Singapore vs a Japanese located server, despite you have 100ms to both, then its actually not your setup/connection alone that impacts how your gaming experience is felt like in your end.  It very much depends on the connectivity of all the other players on the server at the same time when you are there.

    Regarding your other points on connecting wired all the way for FPS gaming, then agreed as that is absolutely key!    Both 3G, 4G and WiFi are inflicting harm for all the rest of the players on same server as a player using such for his/her connectivity...   Maybe the average latency is fairly good, but the variation from great to terrible is there all the time, as the jitter (or better to say the phrase 'packet delay variation) is huge.  And often the date packages are either lost and/or not arriving in the right order anymore, as the protocols for those technologies do not enforce such.  And that is what causes the terrible gaming experience then for everybody else on same server.

    So @DingoKillr ,

    Will you just abstain from setting a given latency as your desired max for the players or do you have a pain point, but maybe it's off my proposed scale?  :o)

    I of course have the sinister intention of using the findings here to impose a certain max latency on the Portal servers I ever later may become involved in going forward.  So wanted to hear from as many here on the forum as possible please.  And latency is of course not the only important parameter to check for, but its definitely one of the major ones.  Potentially also within reach for us to use when setting up our own Portal servers going forward.  Packet Delay Variation (jitter) and packet loss % would be great too, but probably not given to us as 'kick parameters'...  And the past history of EA allowing all to remain connected despite abyssal network connection quality have been disastrous at times (ultimately the servers crashing non stop, as it times out waiting for all to respond etc)...

  • @CyberDyme there is 2 more factor you need to consider.
    1. Latency spike, most players see an average but spikes can be short and extremely large.
    2. Ping on servers is 1 path. It does not factor player to player and server time.
    If an average of 100ms for a player could be 240ms for player to player. But a 40ms player might have no problem with 180ms a 260ms P to P.

    Because of Japan's internet many had under 20ms. So for me P to P was like160ms and Singapore was 200ms but it was the international links was the problem.

    If you want a good average, ping a site on the opposite side of the world. Then you should be looking at about halve that. If server are placed correctly 160ms per player.
  • CyberDyme's avatar
    CyberDyme
    5 years ago

    For those of you on console who are not aware...

    This is the the type of controls that server owners/admins have had on their Battlefield servers in the PC world.  This specific example is from the ProCon interface for BF4, which is supported by the majority of server hosting companies that EA partners with.  I definitely hope (expect) us all, including now also us on consoles to get similar server parameter options available as we go cross-play when we setup our BF2032 servers in the Portal !

    Section 1 is even where we can define if we only want to include/exclude certain country locations for players to be able to join the server from.  I can see the point in this for potential better facilitate player communications, while I personally would actually welcome all no matter their language abilities to play on servers I may be admin on. 

    But the section 2 is definitely what I want to use.  Options to define the conditions for kicking players off due to certain latency (ping) characteristics.  So aka do you want players kicked off if a string of spikes goes above a certain latency value? Or do you want to be gentle and measure the average over a higher number of transmissions before making that call?  Technically this is all easy and accessible to enable from EA's side. 

    I do not want to get back into gameplay with high latency players destroying all the gaming pleasure anymore.  A player from a far away continent coming on my European server and having a latency on 1,600+ ms.  I kid you not...    And then another player logging on from the opposite far away side of the world with a latency of 1,200+ ms.   So between them, the server takes 2.8 seconds to reconcile who shot who and how much.  And that is also for all the other 62 players on the BF server in gameplay proximity of those two players...  No thank you, I am getting too old for that...

    And when the technical options are there and already well rehearsed from previous versions, not costing much to enable and we are many players wanting the same, then EA needs to make this available for all to use by default ! 

     

  • CyberDyme's avatar
    CyberDyme
    5 years ago

    @frantayps wrote:

    @CyberDyme 

    Instead of us talking about ping numbers, dice should fix their netcode.

    the video got pointed out already, timemark is the critical info part

    https://youtu.be/8Kvj5TZNNJ4?t=507


    Yes big thank you @Oskool_007 and  @frantayps,

    Chris/Battlenonsense is hitting all the marks as usual in his gold-standard review of the troublesome NetCode we are all suffering from.  Its sad that the many compromises made in this causes the havoc for even the well connected players.  Instead the NetCode should drive the player behavior to seek the best quality connection possible and not the opposite.

    Its almost sad to also see some of the older Battlenonsense vids, on our wishes/demands to EA on NetCode before they started coding for BFV.  And still it appeared little was learned from the past, when BFV launched...

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.16,236 PostsLatest Activity: 2 hours ago