If you really want to see whether high-ping players have an advantage, try this yourself.
Switch to Wi-Fi with a weak, unstable connection, start downloading a large game in the background, and then jump into Battlefield or REDSEC. I've tested this myself, and it works.
The difference in how gunfights play out can be ridiculous. Situations where you normally get instantly deleted suddenly become much more forgiving. You can experience fights where the timing of hits, damage registration, and what you see on your screen simply doesn't match what seems to be happening on the server.
And that's exactly the problem I've been complaining about with Battlefield and REDSEC for a long time.
With a good, stable connection, you can get killed almost instantly, sometimes before you even see the enemy properly. You can unload half a magazine into someone, get hit markers, and still lose the fight in what feels like a fraction of a second.
Meanwhile, players with unstable connections can appear to move unpredictably, absorb bullets, or kill you after you've already reached cover.
I'm not claiming that every high-ping player automatically has an advantage. But there is clearly something seriously wrong when deliberately making your connection worse can actually improve your experience in gunfights.
A competitive multiplayer shooter should reward good aim, positioning, reaction time, and a stable connection — not network instability.
Don't just take my word for it. Try it yourself and compare the results.
DICE really needs to take a serious look at lag compensation, server synchronization, hit registration, and how the game handles players with unstable connections. Because right now, too many gunfights feel like they're decided by the netcode rather than player skill.
