Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016 (Destiny)

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:38 (3023 days ago)

Avatar

Update's up! (Superior Post Edition)

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:38 (3023 days ago) @ CyberKN
edited by Korny, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:56

Love is in the air...

[image]

Week-long Valentines (Crimson Days) event starts February 9th, with "Crimson Doubles" playlist that promises some "sweet" loot.

Iron Banner returns, with Rift(!) being the game type:

Begins: Tuesday, January 26th, 10AM PST
Ends: Tuesday, February 2nd, 12AM PST

Available from Lord Saladin:
• Rank 3: Class Item, PlayStation Class Item
• Rank 4: Chest Piece, Scout Rifle
• Rank 5: Fusion Rifle

Available as post-game drops:
• Rank 2: Boots
• Rank 3: Chest Piece, PlayStation Helmet, Scout Rifle
• Rank 4: Fusion Rifle

Best Movie of the Week (since one of them was already posted here...):

Avatar

y u so slow? ;)

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:41 (3023 days ago) @ Korny

- No text -

Avatar

Because I don't just hit paste and enter... ;)

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:42 (3023 days ago) @ CyberKN

I put a little more care into my posts than the "ME FIRST" kids. :P

Avatar

Some of us like reading the update ;)

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:46 (3023 days ago) @ Korny

- No text -

Avatar

I foresee a lot of this next month

by Schedonnardus, Texas, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:52 (3023 days ago) @ CyberKN

Avatar

Holy Crap! The Movie of the week *link*

by Schedonnardus, Texas, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:00 (3023 days ago) @ CyberKN

i'm crying here OMG.

Avatar

Rift Iron Banner? This is madness!

by ZackDark @, Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:01 (3023 days ago) @ CyberKN

- No text -

Avatar

Some might call it sanity.

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:03 (3023 days ago) @ ZackDark

- No text -

Avatar

I'm so $#@&ing stoked

by Kahzgul, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:19 (3023 days ago) @ ZackDark

Oh ye who know not of rift, I weep for your soon to be widowed spouses.

Avatar

I'm all for rotating gametypes, but IB lag in Rift?

by ZackDark @, Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:38 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

I foresee hijinks.

Avatar

"IB lag"?

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Friday, January 22, 2016, 00:52 (3022 days ago) @ ZackDark

I foresee hijinks.

I'm really curious. Why do people think lag is different in Iron Banner as opposed to Crucible?

Avatar

Anecdotal evidence by a major part of the community, mostly

by ZackDark @, Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Friday, January 22, 2016, 01:47 (3022 days ago) @ narcogen

- No text -

Avatar

Anecdotal evidence by a major part of the community, mostly

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Friday, January 22, 2016, 03:05 (3022 days ago) @ ZackDark

It's probably not real. Except for the part where, during Iron Banner, we force Destiny to match us with friends across the country and on other continents instead of picking the actual best matches it can find at the moment.

Avatar

Anecdotal evidence by a major part of the community, mostly

by ZackDark @, Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Friday, January 22, 2016, 07:54 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

That's a very good point. I do see more 6-player teams in IB than regular Crucible, so forced connections is a good bet.

Avatar

"IB lag"?

by Kahzgul, Friday, January 22, 2016, 04:32 (3022 days ago) @ narcogen

I foresee hijinks.


I'm really curious. Why do people think lag is different in Iron Banner as opposed to Crucible?

Yeah, I complain about lag all the time, but I don't see much difference in IB vs. normal Crucible. I think it's more that players spend a lot of time in IB for the rewards but don't spend that same amount of time in Crucible when IB isn't going on, so they don't feel like the lag is a problem there.

TBH all of the lag could just be anecdotal and not outside the norm, but to me it's particularly poorly handled by the game (immunity to lagging players, while still allowing them to shoot instead of disconnection or death) and when I lose a gunfight because the guy I should have just annihilated didn't take any damage, it's frustrating. I'm trying to get better about just running away after the initial shot, but it's hard not to keep blasting a moving target.

Avatar

intriguing

by Blackt1g3r @, Login is from an untrusted domain in MN, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:46 (3022 days ago) @ ZackDark

So I suppose this means that even if you are under-leveled, playing smart and relying on your team will still allow you rack up points. If you can grab the spark and the rest of your team is dominating the enemy it won't matter if you are under-leveled.

Hmm, I wonder if bringing along someone severely under-leveled might actually help if they are a good spark runner. There is a chance the opposing team would have someone of a lower light level along with them as well maybe?

Avatar

Most intriguing *Vids*

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:15 (3022 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r

So I suppose this means that even if you are under-leveled, playing smart and relying on your team will still allow you rack up points. If you can grab the spark and the rest of your team is dominating the enemy it won't matter if you are under-leveled.

Hmm, I wonder if bringing along someone severely under-leveled might actually help if they are a good spark runner. There is a chance the opposing team would have someone of a lower light level along with them as well maybe?

This could totally work. I know what it's like to be underleveled in IB, and let me tell ya. Just because you can't hurt the enemies doesn't mean that you can't have fun with them. :P

If you have a designated Spark Runner, everyone else can focus on a specific role and get them to the point safely...

Avatar

Playing as a team will be even more important

by unoudid @, Somewhere over the rainbow, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:54 (3022 days ago) @ ZackDark

Sorry those who like to run solo, you'll get your rear handed to you more than normal running solo this IB

Avatar

On the plus side...

by Korny @, Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:00 (3022 days ago) @ unoudid

Sorry those who like to run solo, you'll get your rear handed to you more than normal running solo this IB

Matches might be over much faster than before, leading to the goods much faster.

Kinda bummed that the Camelot armor is the same as the last IB, though (I need those Warlock gauntlets).

On the other hand, that means that I'll probably be doing this IB on Xbox, so that's something I'll be looking forward to.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:23 (3022 days ago) @ CyberKN

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.

Avatar

Impossible. Wasn't in the patch notes.

by Funkmon @, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:28 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

- No text -

Avatar

They admit that, too! But promise to tell us next time.

by Kahzgul, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 20:31 (3022 days ago) @ Funkmon

- No text -

Avatar

Programmer speak: Patch is client, not server. =)

by slycrel ⌂, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:18 (3022 days ago) @ Funkmon

- No text -

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Claude Errera @, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:05 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.

Yeah, so, I get the hyperbole as a tool... but geez.

If you look at the last month, Thorn doesn't even make the top 10 list of primary weapons. The last week, it's 7th (with 1.37% of all kills). The last 24 hours, yeah, it's creeping up (to 4th place, with 1.69% of all kills)... but it's still WAY below MIDA. (In fact, Thorn + TLW is STILL below MIDA.)

::shrug::

I see it in 2 or 3 games each night (usually just one player, SOMETIMES 2). It's good - but it's not the monster it used to be.

Really, nothing is (except MAYBE MIDA, and even there I can't be sure it's not just folks jumping on the bandwagon).

And I think that's their goal.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:13 (3022 days ago) @ Claude Errera

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.


Yeah, so, I get the hyperbole as a tool... but geez.

If you look at the last month, Thorn doesn't even make the top 10 list of primary weapons. The last week, it's 7th (with 1.37% of all kills). The last 24 hours, yeah, it's creeping up (to 4th place, with 1.69% of all kills)... but it's still WAY below MIDA. (In fact, Thorn + TLW is STILL below MIDA.)

::shrug::

I see it in 2 or 3 games each night (usually just one player, SOMETIMES 2). It's good - but it's not the monster it used to be.

Really, nothing is (except MAYBE MIDA, and even there I can't be sure it's not just folks jumping on the bandwagon).

And I think that's their goal.

Yeah, the MIDA Multi-Tool got some discussion in that podcast I mentioned in my other post. The stats Bungie had on it showed it to be exactly where they wanted it. A good, all around Scout Rifle that wasn't too weak and wasn't too strong. They agreed that they're seeing it used a lot, but disagreed that it's somehow overpowered. That lead into an interesting discussion on perceived imbalance vs gun popularity vs actual imbalance.

Crucible Radio episodes 27 and 28 were a great, informative listen. :)

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 22:59 (3022 days ago) @ Claude Errera

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.


Yeah, so, I get the hyperbole as a tool... but geez.

If you look at the last month, Thorn doesn't even make the top 10 list of primary weapons. The last week, it's 7th (with 1.37% of all kills). The last 24 hours, yeah, it's creeping up (to 4th place, with 1.69% of all kills)... but it's still WAY below MIDA. (In fact, Thorn + TLW is STILL below MIDA.)

::shrug::

I see it in 2 or 3 games each night (usually just one player, SOMETIMES 2). It's good - but it's not the monster it used to be.

Really, nothing is (except MAYBE MIDA, and even there I can't be sure it's not just folks jumping on the bandwagon).

And I think that's their goal.

I hear you, and the numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole tale. The very small pool of players that I get matched with are almost all TLW/snipers. Some (like me) are MIDA/shotgunners. And then there are the super sweating beast mode Thorn / shotgun or Thorn / Her Benevolence players who absolutely mop the floor with us. I'm kind of surprised that TLW isn't the most common gun in the game with MIDA in second, but the fact is that the way matchmaking is right now, I only ever see the same very limited pool of people, so I have no idea what the kinderguardians are using. At least I can watch twitch to see the uber elite players using... TLW and 1kys.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 04:37 (3021 days ago) @ Claude Errera

If you look at the last month, Thorn doesn't even make the top 10 list of primary weapons. The last week, it's 7th (with 1.37% of all kills). The last 24 hours, yeah, it's creeping up (to 4th place, with 1.69% of all kills)... but it's still WAY below MIDA. (In fact, Thorn + TLW is STILL below MIDA.)

Maybe because you can;t get it anymore? I have not gotten a single vanguard exotic bounty since TTK dropped. Thorn is not on the year one blueprints. It might be that the only people using it are those who have been playing pre TTK. Plus you know, it's 170, and I know a lot of people move on and play with higher attack guns so they don't have to adjust when playing IB or Trials.

Avatar

...it's in my blueprint kiosk.

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 05:04 (3021 days ago) @ Cody Miller

And I assumed you could get one from legacy engrams...?

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 08:49 (3021 days ago) @ Cody Miller

You can get thorn from legacy engrams. Lots of people did last week when Xur was selling legacy primary.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:08 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.

Ok, I'm very confused:

1. What is "Skill based" matchmaking and how does it differ from your ideal form of matchmaking? It seems obvious that the matchmaking system uses multiple inputs (skill, latency, etc) to form matches so I really don't know what you are going on about here.

2. Seems to me that any individual game, especially with players of similar skill level, can result in a close call or a blowout based just on a few mistakes or clutch plays. Doesn't getting matched against the same group of players make sense? Should one win or loss really be enough to kick me into an entire different skill group?

3. What kind of discussion of lag do you want? It kinda sounds like you want them to admit they are horrible and apologize. I haven't played a multiplayer game yet, from any developer, where lag isn't sometimes an issue. I can't help feel you're blowing this out of proportion and focusing too much on it...

4. Nobody is ignoring the Crucible meta. Did they discuss it in this specific weekly update? No. Are they ignoring it? Absolutely not. Simple common sense and the history of Destiny receiving several weapon balance updates should tell you that. Furthermore, there was a great two part Planet Destiny podcast around the end of the year where Jon Weisnewski and Sage Merrill talked at length about each and every issue you just mentioned. And more. Search out Crucible Radio episodes 27 and 28 for that.

Sorry to go all numbered list on you, but it's just not fun to read your repetitive posts on things like matchmaking and balance. Especially when the point beneath the surface always seems to be Bungie is incompetent and not paying attention. :/

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 22:54 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.

Matchmaking aside, they also ignored the current "thorn" meta in crucible, as well as the state of snipers, shotguns, and then all of the other guns that aren't The Last Word or Thorn.


Ok, I'm very confused:

1. What is "Skill based" matchmaking and how does it differ from your ideal form of matchmaking? It seems obvious that the matchmaking system uses multiple inputs (skill, latency, etc) to form matches so I really don't know what you are going on about here.

I'll try to answer this as clearly as possible, but you're right that it's complicated. My basic issue is that it seems like that game generates a pool of about 20 players whenever I log on, and those are the only 20 players I'm going to see all night long. Even after a massive blowout and the "we're breaking up the teams" message, I'll be connected to the same players for the next game. The "skill based" system Bungie uses does not seem to look at whether or not you're in a fireteam, nor does it look at success or failures from that particular evening. Rather it seems to use a lifetime of data, and as such it's found that I'm skill 7 (I'm making this number up) and only will ever match me against other skill 7 players. The problem with that is that I'm never matched against skill 8 or skill 6 players, so there's never an opportunity for me to demonstrate that skill 7 is an accurate value. Instead, I'm only matched against other skill 7 players, and they with me, and because there's about a 50% win rate we will never, ever be matched against anyone outside of our specific pool of 20-ish players. Let's examine that win rate, because on the surface a 50% win rate seems ideal, right? But it's not. For some reason, there are two guys who are insanely good in this pool of players, and they always play solo. When they get matched together, their team wins by mercy rule every single time. When they are on opposite teams, they split about 50/50. But the rest of us lay our entire fortune and the feet of these two amazing players. For whatever reason, Bungie's "skill based" matchmaking (this really is a misnomer) keeps those two guys in this bracket where they absolutely dominate the rest of us, and we're considered just as good because our win rates generally match that of these two guys. Maybe a little lower as we're sometimes on the losing side of the uneven teams.

The matchmaking Bungie implemented has resulted in closed loops of player pools based on how little variance there is in the skill section game to game. It's giving too much weight to the perceived skill of the players.

Now, I don't pretend to know what Bungie is doing to make their matchmaking happen, but I know that in December it got really shitty. Suddenly every game I play against at least one guy in South America with a shitty connection, and it's the same overall group of players every time. This didn't matter during SRL because of how that gametype worked, but it sure as hell matters in crucible. Just last week my buddies and I decided to run wild in Rift, and not only did we get matched against the exact same 6 solo players three mercy rule games in a row, but we saw the same guy leave and rejoin 3 times in one match (I assume because he recognized us and didn't want to get stomped for a fourth game). That kind of matchmaking should not happen. It's not fun if you steamroll every opponent, and it's not fun if you lose by 10,000 points every game. When the game says it's breaking up the teams, it needs to not rematch those players for the next round. Before December, it didn't. Now it does, and Bungie - until today - has been silent on the issue.

When I worked on Call of Duty, matchmaking was a big deal. People still complain, certainly. What we landed on, which I think is probably the best, is that we have a separate ranked ladder with ELO matchmaking where you will never play the same team back to back. Then, for unranked play, we look for hosts with the best connection, and then fill in around that host with similarly ranked players. BUT we put in a randomness factor. Every few games you are matched completely blind without any attention to your actual rating. This means sometimes a godly player comes into the lobby, and sometimes a terrible one does. It also means you have a chance to dramatically increase your rating when you get matched in an expert lobby, or dramatically lower it by stinking in a poor lobby. This outlier data is immensely helpful for finding real skill values, and it also gives a much more varied experience to the players. If they don't like their lobby, they can always back out and re-join later. It *should* match them to a new lobby (though in practice it won't always if they haven't at least played 1 game in that lobby first).

Anyway, Bungie's matchmaking changed dramatically in December and the result is many many many re-matches and frequently being connected to people with simply awful connections, which - because of the weird Destiny netcode - lags the whole game for everyone.


2. Seems to me that any individual game, especially with players of similar skill level, can result in a close call or a blowout based just on a few mistakes or clutch plays. Doesn't getting matched against the same group of players make sense? Should one win or loss really be enough to kick me into an entire different skill group?

No, and that's not what I'm advocating. It's more that if you just won or lost a blowout game (mercy rule game), and the lobby gets broken up, you should never be re-matched with the exact same people for the next game. There are have got to be 11 other people who weren't in the last game that you could be matched with for the next one.


3. What kind of discussion of lag do you want? It kinda sounds like you want them to admit they are horrible and apologize. I haven't played a multiplayer game yet, from any developer, where lag isn't sometimes an issue. I can't help feel you're blowing this out of proportion and focusing too much on it...

It's just a constant frustration. Destiny, without lag, is one of (if not THE) most nuanced and exciting PvP games I've ever played. There are loads of variables and it favors teamwork over individual skill, but not so much that a highly skilled player can't wreck a medicore team. With lag, all of that goes out the window as your precious resources are wasted on someone glitching through the map who can then kill you from the other side of a wall. Most pvp games have a single host managing connections so that if one player lags, that player is a sitting duck who can't hurt you back. In destiny that player is immune to all damage and can still shoot. It is definitely more generalized lag since the December patch, but it is still pretty bad. I keep focusing on it because it's kind of mind-blowing how long it's been seemingly ignored by Bungie. For any competitive PvP scenario where you want to implement a skill based matchmaking system, you have to do everything in your power to eliminate lag and other non-skill elements that can dramatically affect gameplay. Bungie isn't doing that. You're got to quarantine the bad connection players in order to preserve the game for everyone else. Giving a higher priority to connection quality will address this issue (this update seems to imply they will make that change, but then again nothing ever "implied" in the updates has ever come true, so I'm loathe to believe it until they outright say it).


4. Nobody is ignoring the Crucible meta. Did they discuss it in this specific weekly update? No. Are they ignoring it? Absolutely not. Simple common sense and the history of Destiny receiving several weapon balance updates should tell you that. Furthermore, there was a great two part Planet Destiny podcast around the end of the year where Jon Weisnewski and Sage Merrill talked at length about each and every issue you just mentioned. And more. Search out Crucible Radio episodes 27 and 28 for that.

Maybe ignoring is too strong a word, but Destiny's weapon balance history is atrocious. Once every 6 months really isn't balancing weapons at all, it's just changing the game to be different. If you're not fine tuning or staying on top of trends, you're not balancing the game. Mass Effect 3's weekly updates is the gold standard. Bungie is getting a pretty crappy "also ran" or "participant" trophy in my book.

I'll look into the crucible radio podcasts. For some reason I thought that these were more fan-based and didn't include actual devs? I've never listened to them so it seems that I'm missing a huge font of information here if that's truly the case.


Sorry to go all numbered list on you, but it's just not fun to read your repetitive posts on things like matchmaking and balance. Especially when the point beneath the surface always seems to be Bungie is incompetent and not paying attention. :/

No worries! I have a definite opinion on what works and doesn't work for PvP multiplayer and I really really really want Bungie to make the changes that will bring Destiny up to being what I consider the pinnacle of PvP FPS games. The potential has been there since day 1, and I know Bungie has the talent to do it, but at the same time I see them making mistakes that other FPS games solved a decade ago and that frustrates me. Map voting in lobbies would be nice. Custom games please? Just an "exploration" mode for PvP maps so you can check out the geometry and practice movement without getting sniped out of every jump would be a huge help for noobs and pros alike. If I didn't care so much about this game and Bungie, I wouldn't get as worked up about it as I do.

Avatar

I broke the mold

by Durandal, Friday, January 22, 2016, 10:51 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

I went in yesterday with a group and we all were rocking Necrochasm and halloween masks. If anyone saw a Titan rocking the Cryptarch's smirk, Necro and Immobius, that was me :)

Routinely landed 1.5 -2.0 KD and while we lost more then we won for the most part every game was very close.

While MidA/TLW and 1K are the most common guns that I've seen, I still see a greater variety then at the end of Y1, which was almost Thorn exclusively.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Friday, January 22, 2016, 01:00 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.

As a lagged player, I call bull. There is no such thing. When you miss a kill on a lagged player and consider that an unfair advantage because that player is teleporting around the map, you have to realize that from the perspective of that player, everyone else is teleporting around the map. All the time. Snipers are useless. Shotgun blasts at point blank range become vain shots into walls and empty air. Super kills are something other players get because you always seem to die before your activation animation finishes.

I think the bottom line here is that if matchmaking worked while prioritizing connection quality, they'd do that. It's not hard to do from a technical perspective. Heck, it's probably the easiest way to do matchmaking. There's apparently not a large enough population and not a large enough overlap between "players with good connections close by" and "players with similar skill levels" to accommodate both all the time without incurring large wait times, so they've opted for that method. They'd be making more players less happy by either putting them in matches against mismatched players with similar connection speeds, or forcing them to wait even longer, when wait time is the other thing players love to complain about.

Unless Destiny is using a token ring architecture there's no reason to force all high latency players to play together.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Friday, January 22, 2016, 04:37 (3022 days ago) @ narcogen

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.


As a lagged player, I call bull. There is no such thing. When you miss a kill on a lagged player and consider that an unfair advantage because that player is teleporting around the map, you have to realize that from the perspective of that player, everyone else is teleporting around the map. All the time. Snipers are useless. Shotgun blasts at point blank range become vain shots into walls and empty air. Super kills are something other players get because you always seem to die before your activation animation finishes.

So this is interesting. Would you mind posting some vids so I can see how the other half lives? I can say that usually the lagged players I encounter aren't the highest scoring, but they absolutely help their team by soaking rockets, supers, special ammo, etc... In Trials I've faced many teams that were pretty clearly lag-switching, too, where one guy would be totally fine for most of the match, and then suddenly lag run into a wall. A second later he teleports elsewhere and all three of my teammates die to simultaneous shotgun blasts. The way Destiny handles lag is exploitable if you turn off outbound traffic while leaving inbound traffic active.

I think the bottom line here is that if matchmaking worked while prioritizing connection quality, they'd do that. It's not hard to do from a technical perspective. Heck, it's probably the easiest way to do matchmaking. There's apparently not a large enough population and not a large enough overlap between "players with good connections close by" and "players with similar skill levels" to accommodate both all the time without incurring large wait times, so they've opted for that method. They'd be making more players less happy by either putting them in matches against mismatched players with similar connection speeds, or forcing them to wait even longer, when wait time is the other thing players love to complain about.

They just said in the update that they're aware that their current matchmaking isn't respecting connection quality enough. Seems to indicate that they are capable of adjusting it in that fashion.


Unless Destiny is using a token ring architecture there's no reason to force all high latency players to play together.

I didn't mean making a game with all lag all the time, but rather to keep people who consistently lag out games cordoned off in their own areas (so people in Siberia would only get matched with other Siberians). Eh, it's much harder to do when you have a fireteam and not purely solo players.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Friday, January 22, 2016, 09:06 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

Yup. "Skill based" matchmaking is confirmed. Not discussed is the "closed loops" of skill players only being matched against the same pool of teams and players repeatedly, regardless of match outcomes. Briefly mentioned is that they are working on addressing how the current matchmaking is causing latency by not prioritizing connection quality. Also not discussed is how their netcode gives an advantage to lagging players.


As a lagged player, I call bull. There is no such thing. When you miss a kill on a lagged player and consider that an unfair advantage because that player is teleporting around the map, you have to realize that from the perspective of that player, everyone else is teleporting around the map. All the time. Snipers are useless. Shotgun blasts at point blank range become vain shots into walls and empty air. Super kills are something other players get because you always seem to die before your activation animation finishes.

So this is interesting. Would you mind posting some vids so I can see how the other half lives? I can say that usually the lagged players I encounter aren't the highest scoring, but they absolutely help their team by soaking rockets, supers, special ammo, etc... In Trials I've faced many teams that were pretty clearly lag-switching, too, where one guy would be totally fine for most of the match, and then suddenly lag run into a wall. A second later he teleports elsewhere and all three of my teammates die to simultaneous shotgun blasts. The way Destiny handles lag is exploitable if you turn off outbound traffic while leaving inbound traffic active.

I rarely play multiplayer. Most of the time I've done so because of a specific achievement, quest, or weapon I'm after that requires it, and so far I've got all the ones for Taken King that I'm going to. However I'll try and make a note to record some footage next time I do have reason to be in crucible or IB.

Unless Destiny is using a token ring architecture there's no reason to force all high latency players to play together.


I didn't mean making a game with all lag all the time, but rather to keep people who consistently lag out games cordoned off in their own areas (so people in Siberia would only get matched with other Siberians). Eh, it's much harder to do when you have a fireteam and not purely solo players.


That IS what I mean. Unless Destiny is using a ring architecture, someone lagging in the game does not lag you. It only lags them. So sometimes when the server is correcting itself, you'll see the lagged player warp around a bit. However to that player, just about everybody is warping around a bit all the time, as the client tries to predict where players will move and the server corrects them.

Unlike, say, an old game that literally uses a ring architecture, where the world state gets passed around the ring, and everybody has to wait until the slow, lagged player catches up with everybody else, and is frozen until they do.

That kind of design absolutely warrants keeping high and low latency connections segregated. Modern multiplayer clients do not.

Nobody is getting cheated out of what appear to be legitimate kills more often than the person who is lagged-- not everybody else in the game with them. If you're talking about somebody shaping their network traffic-- that is something else entirely and should be detected and dealt with wherever possible.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Kahzgul, Friday, January 22, 2016, 15:15 (3022 days ago) @ narcogen

Unless Destiny is using a token ring architecture there's no reason to force all high latency players to play together.


I didn't mean making a game with all lag all the time, but rather to keep people who consistently lag out games cordoned off in their own areas (so people in Siberia would only get matched with other Siberians). Eh, it's much harder to do when you have a fireteam and not purely solo players.

That IS what I mean. Unless Destiny is using a ring architecture, someone lagging in the game does not lag you. It only lags them. So sometimes when the server is correcting itself, you'll see the lagged player warp around a bit. However to that player, just about everybody is warping around a bit all the time, as the client tries to predict where players will move and the server corrects them.

Unlike, say, an old game that literally uses a ring architecture, where the world state gets passed around the ring, and everybody has to wait until the slow, lagged player catches up with everybody else, and is frozen until they do.

That kind of design absolutely warrants keeping high and low latency connections segregated. Modern multiplayer clients do not.

Nobody is getting cheated out of what appear to be legitimate kills more often than the person who is lagged-- not everybody else in the game with them. If you're talking about somebody shaping their network traffic-- that is something else entirely and should be detected and dealt with wherever possible.

Ahh, okay. Yes, Destiny uses ring architecture, sort of. They actually invented something new for the game which is quite clever, but doesn't handle lag in a "fair" manner to non-lagging players. There is no "host" but rather each person's system is responsible for telling all of the other connected systems where that player is, where his bullets are going, and if he's been shot or not. This is how lag switchers cheat: They turn off their upbound traffic (literally with a switch) and can still see everyone else's positions as they invisibly move around the map. Everyone else's system anticipates where they'll be from their last known movement vector, which is why you see them just running forwards into a wall. However, they are actually able to fully navigate on their own, shoot a bunch of people, and then turn the lag switch off so that their actions, all queued up, all happen simultaneously. Suddenly three shotgun blasts happen at once, that guy running into the wall teleports half the map away, and your whole team is dead. Without the lag switch abuse, you can still see lag causing actions to periodically bunch up, or players to teleport small distances (usually about 3 yards, from what I've seen). It's enough that your perfect sniper headshot missed, your golden gun didn't kill anyone even though you nailed him, and you've wasted that nova bomb. If they changed the game to no longer rely on each player's system to tell everyone else if they were hit or not, but rather had a quorum of systems agree on when hits happened whenever the shooter and shootee systems disagreed, it would solve the issue with a very modest increase in network bandwidth.

Avatar

Matchmaking - they admit it.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 04:39 (3021 days ago) @ narcogen

I rarely play multiplayer.

If you did, you'd realize almost immediately that lagging HELPS you most of the time. This is the opposite of what should be.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 05:48 (3021 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by narcogen, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 05:53

I rarely play multiplayer.


If you did, you'd realize almost immediately that lagging HELPS you most of the time. This is the opposite of what should be.

The reason why I don't play is because of the lag. Not just in Destiny, but Halo before that (although Halo, especially co-op, handled it so much worse it isn't even funny).

Lagging does NOT help. This is an illusion fostered by those whose primary experience of lag is their emotional reaction to being "cheated" of fair kills against a lagged player. Yes, the lagged player may avoid a death here or there, but getting kills is much, much harder. Most long range weapons without tracking are useless. You're reduced to being a shotgun camper because short range, hitscan weapons, and being unseen are your best chances for getting kills.

That and hunter tripmines. I think the most kills I've ever got in a Destiny multiplayer match came when I tried that new helm that grants an extra tripmine, and it allows you to just go nuts all over the map.


The primary way of using lag to gain an advantage is to lagswitch. I'm not talking about that.

That said... I'd love to see a way to statistically and objectively substantiate the effects of lag, one way or another. Probably not possible with Destiny, but... if you had a game with client-side prediction that allowed the remote connection by otherwise identical bots-- ones that actually parse the visible field and don't just auto-aim to a precise location-- it'd be interesting to see how bots on the host fare against bots connecting remotely with a latency of, say, 200ms.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 08:55 (3021 days ago) @ narcogen

I rarely play multiplayer.


If you did, you'd realize almost immediately that lagging HELPS you most of the time. This is the opposite of what should be.


The reason why I don't play is because of the lag. Not just in Destiny, but Halo before that (although Halo, especially co-op, handled it so much worse it isn't even funny).

Lagging does NOT help. This is an illusion fostered by those whose primary experience of lag is their emotional reaction to being "cheated" of fair kills against a lagged player. Yes, the lagged player may avoid a death here or there, but getting kills is much, much harder. Most long range weapons without tracking are useless. You're reduced to being a shotgun camper because short range, hitscan weapons, and being unseen are your best chances for getting kills.

Lagging may not help the lagging player, but it most definitely helps that player's team. The lagger soaks up ammunition and supers which could have been used against non-lagging players, and the result is that the enemy team is often caught reloading or with wasted heavy ammo and supers. Having 5 laggers on your team wouldn't help, but a single lagger on a team is a great boon.


That and hunter tripmines. I think the most kills I've ever got in a Destiny multiplayer match came when I tried that new helm that grants an extra tripmine, and it allows you to just go nuts all over the map.

They're gloves. And yeah, they're great.

The primary way of using lag to gain an advantage is to lagswitch. I'm not talking about that.

Unfortunately, lag switches are pretty prevalent. Regardless, changes to netcode to force laggers to take damage or at least prevent them from dealing damage during packet catch up would remove the advantages granted by lag switching.


That said... I'd love to see a way to statistically and objectively substantiate the effects of lag, one way or another. Probably not possible with Destiny, but... if you had a game with client-side prediction that allowed the remote connection by otherwise identical bots-- ones that actually parse the visible field and don't just auto-aim to a precise location-- it'd be interesting to see how bots on the host fare against bots connecting remotely with a latency of, say, 200ms.

There's no "host" in Destiny. Or, rather, everyone is hosting themselves. But I get what you're saying. Seeing a team of 6 with great connections vs. a team of 6 with crap connections to see how everyone does would be interesting. But I think you'd better be able to see the real advantage of a lagger in a game where 11 people have good connections and only one bot lags.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Funkmon @, Saturday, January 23, 2016, 12:57 (3021 days ago) @ Kahzgul

All else being equal, a lagger helps his team. But all else isn't equal. He dies through walls. He dies when nobody is around. He loses most firefights. He shoots people and they don't die. His team effectively loses a player and gains a distraction that still dies half the time. Do you know how hard it is to capture zones while lagged?

Come on guys. For serial? Try playing Destiny and routing your connection through a few repeaters or a bridged connection with a computer hooked up to a cell phone with Ev-Do Rev. A and see if it helps your team.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 05:13 (3020 days ago) @ Kahzgul


The primary way of using lag to gain an advantage is to lagswitch. I'm not talking about that.


Unfortunately, lag switches are pretty prevalent. Regardless, changes to netcode to force laggers to take damage or at least prevent them from dealing damage during packet catch up would remove the advantages granted by lag switching.

So you want anyone with an above average ping to take damage when they shouldn't, regardless of whether or not they're exploiting?

F that. Seriously. In the ear.


That said... I'd love to see a way to statistically and objectively substantiate the effects of lag, one way or another. Probably not possible with Destiny, but... if you had a game with client-side prediction that allowed the remote connection by otherwise identical bots-- ones that actually parse the visible field and don't just auto-aim to a precise location-- it'd be interesting to see how bots on the host fare against bots connecting remotely with a latency of, say, 200ms.


There's no "host" in Destiny. Or, rather, everyone is hosting themselves. But I get what you're saying. Seeing a team of 6 with great connections vs. a team of 6 with crap connections to see how everyone does would be interesting. But I think you'd better be able to see the real advantage of a lagger in a game where 11 people have good connections and only one bot lags.

I know Destiny has no host, but without a host I think there's no way to make the comparison. All I'm really trying to do is isolate the actual effects of lag from the psychological effects. Bots are the only reliable way I can think of doing that, and the games I know of that allow the configuration I described above use a strict client/server architecture rather than peer to peer.

I'm sure Bungie already HAS all of this information. In the current setup, the only ones who can collect data from all clients, see how lag effects each, and make decisions on how matchmaking should work are Bungie. Yet apparently the consensus viewpoint is that Bungie is using this information to sneakily ally themselves with lagswitchers and people with bad connections against everyone else. What would possibly motivate this is beyond me, so I think one or more of the underlying assumptions needs re-examining.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 08:36 (3020 days ago) @ narcogen


The primary way of using lag to gain an advantage is to lagswitch. I'm not talking about that.


Unfortunately, lag switches are pretty prevalent. Regardless, changes to netcode to force laggers to take damage or at least prevent them from dealing damage during packet catch up would remove the advantages granted by lag switching.


So you want anyone with an above average ping to take damage when they shouldn't, regardless of whether or not they're exploiting?

F that. Seriously. In the ear.

Uh... no. I honestly don't even see how you're connecting "take damage when shot by bullets" to "when they should not take damage." Right now, a lagging player causes other systems to use predictive animation to make a phantom version of that lagger that moves along the same vector as the last received packet. That phantom will absorb bullets as if it were the player, but when the lag catches up, the game sees that the bullets did not reach the actual position of the lagger (sometimes because the phantom was between where the lagger was and where the shooter was and stopped those bullets) so the lagger takes no damage. Maybe a lagger would think "well I shouldn't take damage from that rocket, it clearly detonated in mid-air several yards in front of me where absolutely no one at all was standing," but they'd be wrong to think that, because every other player in the game saw the rocket hit you in the face. You can only shoot at what you see, and when you connect with your target, it needs to deal damage to that target.


That said... I'd love to see a way to statistically and objectively substantiate the effects of lag, one way or another. Probably not possible with Destiny, but... if you had a game with client-side prediction that allowed the remote connection by otherwise identical bots-- ones that actually parse the visible field and don't just auto-aim to a precise location-- it'd be interesting to see how bots on the host fare against bots connecting remotely with a latency of, say, 200ms.


There's no "host" in Destiny. Or, rather, everyone is hosting themselves. But I get what you're saying. Seeing a team of 6 with great connections vs. a team of 6 with crap connections to see how everyone does would be interesting. But I think you'd better be able to see the real advantage of a lagger in a game where 11 people have good connections and only one bot lags.


I know Destiny has no host, but without a host I think there's no way to make the comparison. All I'm really trying to do is isolate the actual effects of lag from the psychological effects. Bots are the only reliable way I can think of doing that, and the games I know of that allow the configuration I described above use a strict client/server architecture rather than peer to peer.

Again, what? The actual effect of lag is that the damage receiving part of the player is not the same as the visible animated part of the player, and that's broken. They need to be the same thing in order to be fair and un-exploitable. I guess I can't convince you that bots aren't needed to observe the effects of lag in a game, but perhaps you'll realize that inventing an impossible scenario as the only means I have of convincing you that it does isn't particularly helpful. I'm simply unable to manifest your destiny lag bots in order to prove my point.

I do understand that, as the lagger, you do not feel advantaged. All I can say is that, as not the lagger, I do feel that people with a single lagger on their team have an advantage. I also can say that I'm not alone. Just search the many bungie forums for complaints about laggers and you can see that this isn't something I just made up to goad you with, but a real problem that many people are observing.


I'm sure Bungie already HAS all of this information. In the current setup, the only ones who can collect data from all clients, see how lag effects each, and make decisions on how matchmaking should work are Bungie. Yet apparently the consensus viewpoint is that Bungie is using this information to sneakily ally themselves with lagswitchers and people with bad connections against everyone else. What would possibly motivate this is beyond me, so I think one or more of the underlying assumptions needs re-examining.

Again, no. I don't even know what you're arguing here, and I think I need to step away from this conversation at this point. No one, NO ONE, thinks Bungie wants lag switching in their game. That being said, lag switching IS in the game, and there are ways to change the game code so that lagging of any kind, including the switching variety, does not separate the damage receiving part of the player from the visible and shootable part of the player. That's what I want.

When you shoot something, I want it to take damage. I cannot state it more simply than that. I'm sorry that you lag a lot, and I'm sorry that you feel like my complaints about lag are personal attacks against you. They aren't. The reason it sucks to play with laggers is not because they are lagging. It's because of how the game handles the lag, which is by making the lagger invincible during lag times. If the game handled lag in a more fair manner from a gameplay standpoint, then I would not be complaining about laggers.

Avatar

Totally agree

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 12:23 (3020 days ago) @ Kahzgul

The only thing I would add is that I believe laggers often do have a direct advantage against non-laggers in a 1-on-1 engagement. As you already described, I (a non-lagger) can be shooting at a lagger and hitting them right in the head, only for the game to realize the thing I'm shooting at isn't where it appears to be on my screen, therefore applying no damage. Meanwhile, the lagger is able to deal consistent damage to me. How exactly is this possible? I have no idea. Perhaps the lagger, despite their poor connection, is able to get a more accurate view of where I really am at all times thanks to my solid connection. Perhaps some laggers are able to receive game-state updates more frequently than they are able to send them out. I have no idea how it really works. All I know is that I'm able to win more 1v1 duels than I lose... but against laggers I almost always lose.

Avatar

Both sides are correct.

by ProbablyLast, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 13:04 (3020 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Yeah, trying to kill someone who is lagging is terrible. Just as terrible as dying to someone who isn't even on your screen yet.

Of course, people will be more inclined to blame the other side. Human nature.

Avatar

My k/d goes up by half when I play at my parents' house.

by Funkmon @, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 16:52 (3020 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

- No text -

Avatar

Totally agree

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 00:13 (3018 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

The only thing I would add is that I believe laggers often do have a direct advantage against non-laggers in a 1-on-1 engagement. As you already described, I (a non-lagger) can be shooting at a lagger and hitting them right in the head, only for the game to realize the thing I'm shooting at isn't where it appears to be on my screen, therefore applying no damage. Meanwhile, the lagger is able to deal consistent damage to me. How exactly is this possible? I have no idea. Perhaps the lagger, despite their poor connection, is able to get a more accurate view of where I really am at all times thanks to my solid connection. Perhaps some laggers are able to receive game-state updates more frequently than they are able to send them out. I have no idea how it really works. All I know is that I'm able to win more 1v1 duels than I lose... but against laggers I almost always lose.

Which is interesting to me, because I don't think of lagging players as having an advantage. Mainly, they bounce around the map and don't do a lot of damage, if any. It's as if they don't have a good idea of where I am and can't fight effectively... which makes perfect sense if I'm bouncing around on their screens as much or more as they are on mine.

As Kahzgul said below, it's the way they distract or disrupt the flow of a battle that's their biggest weapon. But laggy players disrupting a team is hardly a Destiny only problem.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by narcogen ⌂ @, Andover, Massachusetts, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 12:27 (3020 days ago) @ Kahzgul


The primary way of using lag to gain an advantage is to lagswitch. I'm not talking about that.


Unfortunately, lag switches are pretty prevalent. Regardless, changes to netcode to force laggers to take damage or at least prevent them from dealing damage during packet catch up would remove the advantages granted by lag switching.


So you want anyone with an above average ping to take damage when they shouldn't, regardless of whether or not they're exploiting?

F that. Seriously. In the ear.


Uh... no. I honestly don't even see how you're connecting "take damage when shot by bullets" to "when they should not take damage." Right now, a lagging player causes other systems to use predictive animation to make a phantom version of that lagger that moves along the same vector as the last received packet. That phantom will absorb bullets as if it were the player, but when the lag catches up, the game sees that the bullets did not reach the actual position of the lagger (sometimes because the phantom was between where the lagger was and where the shooter was and stopped those bullets) so the lagger takes no damage. Maybe a lagger would think "well I shouldn't take damage from that rocket, it clearly detonated in mid-air several yards in front of me where absolutely no one at all was standing," but they'd be wrong to think that, because every other player in the game saw the rocket hit you in the face. You can only shoot at what you see, and when you connect with your target, it needs to deal damage to that target.

The game is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what "everyone else saw". The game should do as good a job as it can at managing the state of the playing field, and meshing its predictions with reality as it can. The answer to how to handle the situation when the game fails to do so, for whatever reason, is not to poll the non-lagged players. For the game to have even the appearance of fairness, each viewpoint needs to be as accurate as it can be, and when it can't be, it needs to fail gracefully. Bungie has apparently decided that letting a lagged player get away instead of dying is the way to fail gracefully. As a lagged player I agree, although I think I'd probably agree even if my ping was 5ms instead of 200.


[snip]

Again, what? The actual effect of lag is that the damage receiving part of the player is not the same as the visible animated part of the player, and that's broken.

Not the same as the visible animated part of the player FOR YOU. The game was bought and paid for by all the players, not just you, and not just for people with low latency connections like you. If you're trying to convince me that the big problem with crucible is that some low k/d players just aren't dying enough to enemies they never see... I just don't know what to say.

They need to be the same thing in order to be fair and un-exploitable. I guess I can't convince you that bots aren't needed to observe the effects of lag in a game, but perhaps you'll realize that inventing an impossible scenario as the only means I have of convincing you that it does isn't particularly helpful. I'm simply unable to manifest your destiny lag bots in order to prove my point.

If the lagged player is damaged by projectiles he doesn't see, how is that fairer than lagged players not being damaged by projectiles the other players do see? Frankly I doubt lagswitching is anywhere near as prevalent as people say it is. People see a player teleport, that they think should have died, and they just jump to "oh he's a cheater". I've been accused of it myself.


I do understand that, as the lagger, you do not feel advantaged. All I can say is that, as not the lagger, I do feel that people with a single lagger on their team have an advantage. I also can say that I'm not alone. Just search the many bungie forums for complaints about laggers and you can see that this isn't something I just made up to goad you with, but a real problem that many people are observing.

It is not a real problem people are observing. It is a real thing people feel as they play the game. That's not the same thing at all. Lots of people feel that vaccines cause autism and that the moon landing was faked and that angels are real and that GMOs cause cancer and that climate change is a fraud, but lots of people feeling that way doesn't make it so.

I am a lagged player. (I'm also not great at the game, but that's a second thing.) I struggle to keep a k/d above .5. I rarely am on the winning side of a team game. When things get lopsided, people quit. I often find myself facing the kill leader more often than not because I'm an easy mark; most often the player who sees his or her target first, who gets the first shot off and lands it, is going to win, and that is usually not the lagged player. Even when I see myself firing first, either the shot doesn't land or the delay means it landed late.

About the only "advantage" I feel I've ever experienced is a slightly higher than normal chance to get dead man kills, usually with grenades-- presumably because the game allows for the completion of a grenade throw animation that I started before my client saw my death, but that to other players began after I was dead. There is no basis for the preference of the other client, or the other clients' view of the game state as being more authoritative than mine based solely on latency.


I'm sure Bungie already HAS all of this information. In the current setup, the only ones who can collect data from all clients, see how lag effects each, and make decisions on how matchmaking should work are Bungie. Yet apparently the consensus viewpoint is that Bungie is using this information to sneakily ally themselves with lagswitchers and people with bad connections against everyone else. What would possibly motivate this is beyond me, so I think one or more of the underlying assumptions needs re-examining.


Again, no. I don't even know what you're arguing here, and I think I need to step away from this conversation at this point. No one, NO ONE, thinks Bungie wants lag switching in their game. That being said, lag switching IS in the game, and there are ways to change the game code so that lagging of any kind, including the switching variety, does not separate the damage receiving part of the player from the visible and shootable part of the player. That's what I want.

What I'm saying is that Bungie knows there are lag switchers, and it knows there are lagged players. Their system works the way it does because that's the way they want it to. I think they are aware of your possible "solution" and have rejected it


When you shoot something, I want it to take damage. I cannot state it more simply than that.

If I don't see you shoot me, then you didn't shoot me. If that's because I lagswitched, then I'm a cheater, and they should catch me and ban me. If it was because of lag... tough crap, it happens, and it'll rob me of more kills than it ever will you or anyone who has ever played against me.

I'm sorry that you lag a lot, and I'm sorry that you feel like my complaints about lag are personal attacks against you. They aren't. The reason it sucks to play with laggers is not because they are lagging. It's because of how the game handles the lag, which is by making the lagger invincible during lag times. If the game handled lag in a more fair manner from a gameplay standpoint, then I would not be complaining about laggers.

I don't see your complaint as a personal attack against me. I see your suggested solution as unfair to me, because it is. If the game handled lag the way you want, of course you'd have no complaints-- those kills wouldn't just be easy, they'd be free!

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 17:29 (3020 days ago) @ narcogen

I'm sorry that you lag a lot, and I'm sorry that you feel like my complaints about lag are personal attacks against you. They aren't. The reason it sucks to play with laggers is not because they are lagging. It's because of how the game handles the lag, which is by making the lagger invincible during lag times. If the game handled lag in a more fair manner from a gameplay standpoint, then I would not be complaining about laggers.


I don't see your complaint as a personal attack against me. I see your suggested solution as unfair to me, because it is. If the game handled lag the way you want, of course you'd have no complaints-- those kills wouldn't just be easy, they'd be free!

I'm glad you're not taking it personally; it really seemed from your previous statements that you were.

Let me say that I am not advocating change because I personally feel it is unfair. I worked in video game development for 13 years. A significant portion of that time was working on competitive PvP FPS games. Lag is an issue that I'm intimately familiar with from both the player and designer standpoint. I'm clearly doing a poor job of explaining how a change is needed, and how that change would be more fair to both non-laggers and laggers alike. Sorry about that.

Presently, if someone lags, the predictive algorithms in the game keep the avatar of the lagged player moving in the direction they were before they lagged. When the game catches up, it then figures out if the bullets fired at that avatar hit where the player actually was at those times. Usually they don't, and often its because they were stopped by the avatar!

The best solution is dedicated servers. Always and forever.

Second best is to make the player with the best connection the host. This provides a small advantage to the host, but otherwise means that what's actually going on within the game is managed by a solid connection, which would reduce lag as much as possible without having dedicated servers.

Neither of these solutions mean you have to be stuck in place while lagging. Bungie has impressive predictive algorithms which generally make the game look incredibly smooth. Those should stay in place. The change I'm advocating is that instead of asking an individual player's system whether or not that player got hit by any given bullet, all of that polling is answered by the host machine or dedicated server.

For a lagger, the result would probably not look any different than it does today. Honestly, you'd notice almost no difference. For non-laggers, however, the change would mean that laggers would die immediately when you shot them rather than several seconds later. Those corpses would still be able to shoot you because the host would not be preventing the lagged players from shooting after they died on the host system if they had not yet died on their lagging system. But they would not be soaking up supers, rockets, and bullets from the non-lagged players. It would still be annoying to a degree, but the advantage that exists right now would be eliminated.

You're never going to eliminate all lag, and people with chronically lagged connections are always going to have a sub-par experience with online multiplayer. The goal is to minimize the disruption caused by lag to all players. This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.

I think that's nonsense.

by Claude Errera @, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 20:34 (3019 days ago) @ Kahzgul

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.

In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.

Just for fun (and knowing it's completely anecdotal info), I kept a count of kills I thought I SHOULD have had last night - but also of kills that surprised me (as in, I knew I was shooting badly but the guy still died).

There were 14 non-kills in 9 games that really felt wrong to me. There were also 4 kills that probably shouldn't have happened, if what was happening on MY screen was the objective reality.

I wonder how that ratio would change if I did this consistently, every night (I won't, because it's a pain in the ass, and I don't care enough), because I'm USED to looking for kills I SHOULD have gotten, but last night was the very first night I looked for kills I SHOULDN'T have.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 21:55 (3019 days ago) @ Claude Errera

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.


In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.

I won't put words in Kahzgul's mouth, but my interpretation of his argument is that lag will happen in any online game... it's just that the way Destiny deals with lag creates an advantage for the lagger that doesn't exist in other games. I don't have Kahzgul's expertise or developer-side knowledge, but my anectodal experience very much lines up with what he is saying.

I've spent more time playing online shooters than any other genre over the past 15 years... From Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 to the Halo franchise, Gears, CoD, Titanfall, Battlefield, Splinter Cell, and many more. Lag is always an issue (more in some games than others). Personally, my experience with lag in pretty much every case but Destiny is the encounter turns into a giant coin toss. Lag makes things weird, and sometimes you come out on top, sometimes you don't. But with Destiny, I feel almost certain I will come out the looser every time I go toe-to-toe with a severe lagger. Either their shots don't register as they hit, so I don't know I'm being hit until they all kick in at once and I drop dead, or I empty 2 clips into their face without scoring a point of damage, and their teammate gets the jump on me while I'm reloading.

So while I don't understand the technical nuances of what is going on, I can say I feel disadvantaged against laggy Destiny players in a way that doesn't happen in most other games.

I think that's nonsense.

by Claude Errera @, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 22:00 (3019 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.


In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.


I won't put words in Kahzgul's mouth, but my interpretation of his argument is that lag will happen in any online game... it's just that the way Destiny deals with lag creates an advantage for the lagger that doesn't exist in other games. I don't have Kahzgul's expertise or developer-side knowledge, but my anectodal experience very much lines up with what he is saying.

I've spent more time playing online shooters than any other genre over the past 15 years... From Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 to the Halo franchise, Gears, CoD, Titanfall, Battlefield, Splinter Cell, and many more. Lag is always an issue (more in some games than others). Personally, my experience with lag in pretty much every case but Destiny is the encounter turns into a giant coin toss. Lag makes things weird, and sometimes you come out on top, sometimes you don't. But with Destiny, I feel almost certain I will come out the looser every time I go toe-to-toe with a severe lagger. Either their shots don't register as they hit, so I don't know I'm being hit until they all kick in at once and I drop dead, or I empty 2 clips into their face without scoring a point of damage, and their teammate gets the jump on me while I'm reloading.

So while I don't understand the technical nuances of what is going on, I can say I feel disadvantaged against laggy Destiny players in a way that doesn't happen in most other games.

And I think what I was trying to point out was that this interpretation (that you're coming out the loser in the majority of interactions) has a lot to do with your BELIEF that you will come out the loser in the majority of interactions - you're paying attention to the examples of that more than you are to the examples of the converse.

I was in a 6-person party the other night where lag (on the other team) was a pretty major thing; people were raging about the kills they were getting, the kills we WEREN'T getting... but then, near the end of the game, someone noticed that the two red-bar players on the other team were at the BOTTOM OF THE SCOREBOARD. By a significant chunk.

We won the game, and the laggers (who caused no end of frustration to all of us) were the folks who paid the highest price.

In fact, if you'd been watching the game as an objective observer, I think you'd have been hard-pressed to reconcile the rage with the final result.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 22:19 (3019 days ago) @ Claude Errera

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.


In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.


I won't put words in Kahzgul's mouth, but my interpretation of his argument is that lag will happen in any online game... it's just that the way Destiny deals with lag creates an advantage for the lagger that doesn't exist in other games. I don't have Kahzgul's expertise or developer-side knowledge, but my anectodal experience very much lines up with what he is saying.

I've spent more time playing online shooters than any other genre over the past 15 years... From Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 to the Halo franchise, Gears, CoD, Titanfall, Battlefield, Splinter Cell, and many more. Lag is always an issue (more in some games than others). Personally, my experience with lag in pretty much every case but Destiny is the encounter turns into a giant coin toss. Lag makes things weird, and sometimes you come out on top, sometimes you don't. But with Destiny, I feel almost certain I will come out the looser every time I go toe-to-toe with a severe lagger. Either their shots don't register as they hit, so I don't know I'm being hit until they all kick in at once and I drop dead, or I empty 2 clips into their face without scoring a point of damage, and their teammate gets the jump on me while I'm reloading.

So while I don't understand the technical nuances of what is going on, I can say I feel disadvantaged against laggy Destiny players in a way that doesn't happen in most other games.


And I think what I was trying to point out was that this interpretation (that you're coming out the loser in the majority of interactions) has a lot to do with your BELIEF that you will come out the loser in the majority of interactions - you're paying attention to the examples of that more than you are to the examples of the converse.

I was in a 6-person party the other night where lag (on the other team) was a pretty major thing; people were raging about the kills they were getting, the kills we WEREN'T getting... but then, near the end of the game, someone noticed that the two red-bar players on the other team were at the BOTTOM OF THE SCOREBOARD. By a significant chunk.

We won the game, and the laggers (who caused no end of frustration to all of us) were the folks who paid the highest price.

In fact, if you'd been watching the game as an objective observer, I think you'd have been hard-pressed to reconcile the rage with the final result.

That's certainly possible, although I know for certain that I often go against laggy players who end up at or near the top of the score board. During the December Iron Banner, Slycrel and I had a run of 9 or 10 losses in a row, with red-bar players leading the enemy team every single time. It wasn't the same specific players each game, either.

I should also point out that as someone who records a boatload of gameplay footage, my opinions on this matter are not based on my "in-the-moment" first impressions. I'm constantly re-watching games I've recorded, searching for good clips. So a lot of the laggy encounters I'm basing my opinions on are moments that I've rewatched, often in slow motion. Not to say I don't get plenty of stuff wrong, but I have looked back at a lot of it a second time.

On a related note, I've caught many situations where I was *SURE* I should have gotten a kill, but when I slow down the footage and rewatch it I can see my crosshair is clearly not on the target when I'm firing. My age is clearly getting to me :)

I think that's nonsense.

by Claude Errera @, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 22:36 (3019 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

My age is clearly getting to me :)

Heh - I'm willing to admit that this might be the reason I don't get too worked up about this stuff. :) I KNOW my age is a factor in my losses... so I'm more willing to attribute shenanigans to ME than someone who has more confidence in their own ability. ;)

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 22:41 (3019 days ago) @ Claude Errera

My age is clearly getting to me :)


Heh - I'm willing to admit that this might be the reason I don't get too worked up about this stuff. :) I KNOW my age is a factor in my losses... so I'm more willing to attribute shenanigans to ME than someone who has more confidence in their own ability. ;)

To be honest, proper planning and game awareness can improve your play MUCH more than twitch reaction speed. There was the saying back in the Halo days, LOW IS PRO, referring the the look sensitivity. The idea was that if you needed a fast speed to quickly react to something, you didn't think far enough ahead.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Sunday, January 24, 2016, 22:52 (3019 days ago) @ Claude Errera

My age is clearly getting to me :)


Heh - I'm willing to admit that this might be the reason I don't get too worked up about this stuff. :) I KNOW my age is a factor in my losses... so I'm more willing to attribute shenanigans to ME than someone who has more confidence in their own ability. ;)

Hah... I think it's safe to say we bring our share of shenanigans to the game :)

All of this brings up an interesting point, though. If I think of it, I'll take a screen-cap of the post game scoreboard every time I play with laggy players, just to see if it actually does make a significant difference over time.

Now that I think about it, it would be great to have player connection quality displayed in the post game carnage report on BNet.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Monday, January 25, 2016, 23:59 (3018 days ago) @ Claude Errera

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.


In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.


I won't put words in Kahzgul's mouth, but my interpretation of his argument is that lag will happen in any online game... it's just that the way Destiny deals with lag creates an advantage for the lagger that doesn't exist in other games. I don't have Kahzgul's expertise or developer-side knowledge, but my anectodal experience very much lines up with what he is saying.

I've spent more time playing online shooters than any other genre over the past 15 years... From Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 to the Halo franchise, Gears, CoD, Titanfall, Battlefield, Splinter Cell, and many more. Lag is always an issue (more in some games than others). Personally, my experience with lag in pretty much every case but Destiny is the encounter turns into a giant coin toss. Lag makes things weird, and sometimes you come out on top, sometimes you don't. But with Destiny, I feel almost certain I will come out the looser every time I go toe-to-toe with a severe lagger. Either their shots don't register as they hit, so I don't know I'm being hit until they all kick in at once and I drop dead, or I empty 2 clips into their face without scoring a point of damage, and their teammate gets the jump on me while I'm reloading.

So while I don't understand the technical nuances of what is going on, I can say I feel disadvantaged against laggy Destiny players in a way that doesn't happen in most other games.


And I think what I was trying to point out was that this interpretation (that you're coming out the loser in the majority of interactions) has a lot to do with your BELIEF that you will come out the loser in the majority of interactions - you're paying attention to the examples of that more than you are to the examples of the converse.

I was in a 6-person party the other night where lag (on the other team) was a pretty major thing; people were raging about the kills they were getting, the kills we WEREN'T getting... but then, near the end of the game, someone noticed that the two red-bar players on the other team were at the BOTTOM OF THE SCOREBOARD. By a significant chunk.

We won the game, and the laggers (who caused no end of frustration to all of us) were the folks who paid the highest price.

In fact, if you'd been watching the game as an objective observer, I think you'd have been hard-pressed to reconcile the rage with the final result.

Jumping back in here. Cruel is interpreting my statements correctly. Also, the lag is not necessarily an advantage for the lagger in Destiny. Rather it is an advantage for the lagger's team. Lagging doesn't mean the lagger magically gets more kills. Rather it means that the enemies of the lagger waste a lot of ammunition and abilities trying to kill the invincible lagger instead of his teammates, which means those teammates are taking less damage and able to kill more enemies. Obviously a team facing a lagger can minimize the lagger's advantage by identifying the lagger and ignoring him throughout the match. Depending on how bad the lag is, this may or may not help the non-lagging team as it could result in the lagger finding that they can move with impunity through the battlespace, or it may simply minimize the impact that the lagger has on the game, essentially resulting in a de facto 6 on 5 game, with the lagger's team in the minority.

Regardless, because the potential for grave exploitation exists within the bounds of how Destiny handles lag, I find the mulitplayer netcode lacking, and would advise Bungie to improve the situation for subsequent releases (assuming it is far too late for the sort of massive netcode overhaul it would take to resolve these issues in the current iteration of Destiny).

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 00:26 (3018 days ago) @ Kahzgul

This is a problem that has been solved by many previous games, and it's weird that Bungie has insisted on reinventing the wheel when it comes to handling lag, and - sadly - their new wheel is a little bit square.


In all the discussion about this topic I've seen, this is the assertion (and you've made it multiple times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting something you mean in a different way) that bothers me the most - because as far as I can tell, NO previous game has solved this problem. EVERY multiplayer game I've ever played has lag issues - it's just that they're not all the SAME lag issues.


I won't put words in Kahzgul's mouth, but my interpretation of his argument is that lag will happen in any online game... it's just that the way Destiny deals with lag creates an advantage for the lagger that doesn't exist in other games. I don't have Kahzgul's expertise or developer-side knowledge, but my anectodal experience very much lines up with what he is saying.

I've spent more time playing online shooters than any other genre over the past 15 years... From Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 to the Halo franchise, Gears, CoD, Titanfall, Battlefield, Splinter Cell, and many more. Lag is always an issue (more in some games than others). Personally, my experience with lag in pretty much every case but Destiny is the encounter turns into a giant coin toss. Lag makes things weird, and sometimes you come out on top, sometimes you don't. But with Destiny, I feel almost certain I will come out the looser every time I go toe-to-toe with a severe lagger. Either their shots don't register as they hit, so I don't know I'm being hit until they all kick in at once and I drop dead, or I empty 2 clips into their face without scoring a point of damage, and their teammate gets the jump on me while I'm reloading.

So while I don't understand the technical nuances of what is going on, I can say I feel disadvantaged against laggy Destiny players in a way that doesn't happen in most other games.


And I think what I was trying to point out was that this interpretation (that you're coming out the loser in the majority of interactions) has a lot to do with your BELIEF that you will come out the loser in the majority of interactions - you're paying attention to the examples of that more than you are to the examples of the converse.

I was in a 6-person party the other night where lag (on the other team) was a pretty major thing; people were raging about the kills they were getting, the kills we WEREN'T getting... but then, near the end of the game, someone noticed that the two red-bar players on the other team were at the BOTTOM OF THE SCOREBOARD. By a significant chunk.

We won the game, and the laggers (who caused no end of frustration to all of us) were the folks who paid the highest price.

In fact, if you'd been watching the game as an objective observer, I think you'd have been hard-pressed to reconcile the rage with the final result.


Jumping back in here. Cruel is interpreting my statements correctly. Also, the lag is not necessarily an advantage for the lagger in Destiny. Rather it is an advantage for the lagger's team. Lagging doesn't mean the lagger magically gets more kills. Rather it means that the enemies of the lagger waste a lot of ammunition and abilities trying to kill the invincible lagger instead of his teammates, which means those teammates are taking less damage and able to kill more enemies. Obviously a team facing a lagger can minimize the lagger's advantage by identifying the lagger and ignoring him throughout the match. Depending on how bad the lag is, this may or may not help the non-lagging team as it could result in the lagger finding that they can move with impunity through the battlespace, or it may simply minimize the impact that the lagger has on the game, essentially resulting in a de facto 6 on 5 game, with the lagger's team in the minority.

Regardless, because the potential for grave exploitation exists within the bounds of how Destiny handles lag, I find the mulitplayer netcode lacking, and would advise Bungie to improve the situation for subsequent releases (assuming it is far too late for the sort of massive netcode overhaul it would take to resolve these issues in the current iteration of Destiny).

I guess I still have a few problems with your whole outlook on this:

- I still don't really buy that Destiny's handling of lag is significantly worse than any other game. And I think you underrepresent the advantages Destiny's systems brought us when compared to Bungie's previous titles. (Those advantages being things like drop-in matchmaking, never going to a black screen to try and reconnect players after a host drop, minimal gameplay disruption when any player drops, etc)

- I think your suggestion that they rewrite the network stack is just plain silly. Surely you understand that what you are suggesting isn't just some minor task that can be completed over a weekend, or a week, or a month. And given that all of Destiny seems to run on the same type of networking vs the split types the Halos used, rewriting the networking and having both the Crucible and single player continue to function seems like a complete impossibility. But instead of acknowledging that you ding Bungie over and over for not doing it.

- Finally, I think perhaps we should stop talking about the possible advantages Destiny gives to laggers manipulating network traffic. Specifically: Those people are not laggers and lag is no longer the issue. Those people are cheaters and the best way to fix the problem, no matter how the networking does or doesn't work in their favor, would be to ban the heck out of them, delete their profiles, and tell them to never come back.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 03:41 (3018 days ago) @ Ragashingo

I guess I still have a few problems with your whole outlook on this:

- I still don't really buy that Destiny's handling of lag is significantly worse than any other game. And I think you underrepresent the advantages Destiny's systems brought us when compared to Bungie's previous titles. (Those advantages being things like drop-in matchmaking, never going to a black screen to try and reconnect players after a host drop, minimal gameplay disruption when any player drops, etc)

- Destiny is certainly better than Halo in that Halo forced every system to match all the time, which was rough and made for some lengthy "catching up" pauses and lots of host migrations etc.. to find the best server. Absolutely. But halo had a lot of things to commend it. Notably that it felt fair (disclaimer: I have not played any Halo since Reach, and I almost mostly played Halo PvP with friends during LAN parties rather than online with strangers, so my exposure to actual online halo is pretty low), even if it had connectivity issues.


- I think your suggestion that they rewrite the network stack is just plain silly. Surely you understand that what you are suggesting isn't just some minor task that can be completed over a weekend, or a week, or a month. And given that all of Destiny seems to run on the same type of networking vs the split types the Halos used, rewriting the networking and having both the Crucible and single player continue to function seems like a complete impossibility. But instead of acknowledging that you ding Bungie over and over for not doing it.

While I think a wholly new network stack would be ideal, it's clearly impossible. It's probably impossible for Destiny 2 also, unless they get loaned a network stack from another studio (not unheard of, but still unlikely, especially as Bungie prides themselves on doing it themselves). The realistic change I'm asking for is a change in how bullet damage polling works so that when I kill a guy on my system, he dies on my system, even if he hasn't died yet on his actual system (but will when he catches up). Bungie is already using predictive algorithms quite a bit - why not predict that I did enough damage to kill the guy? Then I won't be wasting more ammo on someone who is already dead.


- Finally, I think perhaps we should stop talking about the possible advantages Destiny gives to laggers manipulating network traffic. Specifically: Those people are not laggers and lag is no longer the issue. Those people are cheaters and the best way to fix the problem, no matter how the networking does or doesn't work in their favor, would be to ban the heck out of them, delete their profiles, and tell them to never come back.

Agreed, and I've been trying to avoid that subject. My above posts are all aimed at general lag, not at lag switchers. A lag-switcher still gets real-time downward traffic, so they can see where you are and shoot you. Then when they switch their lag off, all of their bullets fire at once, and kill everyone they shot, all while they were effectively moving invisibly through the map. I have played against a couple of serious lag switchers in trials and it's not fun. You see a guy running into a wall for a bit and then all three players on your team are dead at once, all from the same guy who just teleported back behind you. Also: While I did encounter a pretty obvious lag switcher in salvage earlier this week, I haven't seen one in trials or IB for at least a month. Even though Bungie's been pretty mum on when they ban people and how many they ban, it seems to be pretty effective.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 06:06 (3018 days ago) @ Kahzgul

I guess I still have a few problems with your whole outlook on this:

- I still don't really buy that Destiny's handling of lag is significantly worse than any other game. And I think you underrepresent the advantages Destiny's systems brought us when compared to Bungie's previous titles. (Those advantages being things like drop-in matchmaking, never going to a black screen to try and reconnect players after a host drop, minimal gameplay disruption when any player drops, etc)


- Destiny is certainly better than Halo in that Halo forced every system to match all the time, which was rough and made for some lengthy "catching up" pauses and lots of host migrations etc.. to find the best server. Absolutely. But halo had a lot of things to commend it. Notably that it felt fair (disclaimer: I have not played any Halo since Reach, and I almost mostly played Halo PvP with friends during LAN parties rather than online with strangers, so my exposure to actual online halo is pretty low), even if it had connectivity issues.

No. That's revisionist, plain and simple. Halo 1, Host was almost invincible. Even in LAN games. In Halo 3, the game would lag for minutes at a time and I'd just take damage from literally nowhere. And then my shields would fail to recharge. And then I'd keel over seemingly at random. I honestly cannot recall anything like that ever happening in Destiny. Even if its something similar, Destiny manages to give me a little idea of where the enemy is while Halo often wouldn't.


- I think your suggestion that they rewrite the network stack is just plain silly. Surely you understand that what you are suggesting isn't just some minor task that can be completed over a weekend, or a week, or a month. And given that all of Destiny seems to run on the same type of networking vs the split types the Halos used, rewriting the networking and having both the Crucible and single player continue to function seems like a complete impossibility. But instead of acknowledging that you ding Bungie over and over for not doing it.


While I think a wholly new network stack would be ideal, it's clearly impossible. It's probably impossible for Destiny 2 also, unless they get loaned a network stack from another studio (not unheard of, but still unlikely, especially as Bungie prides themselves on doing it themselves). The realistic change I'm asking for is a change in how bullet damage polling works so that when I kill a guy on my system, he dies on my system, even if he hasn't died yet on his actual system (but will when he catches up). Bungie is already using predictive algorithms quite a bit - why not predict that I did enough damage to kill the guy? Then I won't be wasting more ammo on someone who is already dead.

I cannot believe that dropping in a new premade network stack to Destiny is anything other than impossible. No other studio has something that will power Destiny's Crucible, and Patrol, and Raids. It took Bungie multiple tries to get Raids to perform the way they wanted, and that was with their own code. Someone else's is just going to replace all that? Not a chance.

I can't see your predictive death working well either. You kill the guy on your screen... except you didn't really kill him in actuality ... then what happens? A guy who the game showed you killing will magically comes back to life and kill you instead. What kind of solution is that? Maybe it works in one narrow case or even is balanced more in the favor of the player with a good connection, but overall it sounds at least as problematic as what happens now, if not more so.


- Finally, I think perhaps we should stop talking about the possible advantages Destiny gives to laggers manipulating network traffic. Specifically: Those people are not laggers and lag is no longer the issue. Those people are cheaters and the best way to fix the problem, no matter how the networking does or doesn't work in their favor, would be to ban the heck out of them, delete their profiles, and tell them to never come back.


Agreed, and I've been trying to avoid that subject. My above posts are all aimed at general lag, not at lag switchers. A lag-switcher still gets real-time downward traffic, so they can see where you are and shoot you. Then when they switch their lag off, all of their bullets fire at once, and kill everyone they shot, all while they were effectively moving invisibly through the map. I have played against a couple of serious lag switchers in trials and it's not fun. You see a guy running into a wall for a bit and then all three players on your team are dead at once, all from the same guy who just teleported back behind you. Also: While I did encounter a pretty obvious lag switcher in salvage earlier this week, I haven't seen one in trials or IB for at least a month. Even though Bungie's been pretty mum on when they ban people and how many they ban, it seems to be pretty effective.

Yeah, I simply haven't seen that. Not saying it doesn't happen though. Trials seems to be the place people see the worst and most questionable lag and I don't hardly play it. The non-self-revive rules do not appeal to me. I'm actually quite good at Skirmish, it maybe be my best gametype, but I think my play style is just one step too risky and one step too adaptive (where Trials does not allow you to adapt mid round) to have much fun.

Avatar

I think that's nonsense.

by Kahzgul, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 07:49 (3018 days ago) @ Ragashingo

I guess I still have a few problems with your whole outlook on this:

- I still don't really buy that Destiny's handling of lag is significantly worse than any other game. And I think you underrepresent the advantages Destiny's systems brought us when compared to Bungie's previous titles. (Those advantages being things like drop-in matchmaking, never going to a black screen to try and reconnect players after a host drop, minimal gameplay disruption when any player drops, etc)


- Destiny is certainly better than Halo in that Halo forced every system to match all the time, which was rough and made for some lengthy "catching up" pauses and lots of host migrations etc.. to find the best server. Absolutely. But halo had a lot of things to commend it. Notably that it felt fair (disclaimer: I have not played any Halo since Reach, and I almost mostly played Halo PvP with friends during LAN parties rather than online with strangers, so my exposure to actual online halo is pretty low), even if it had connectivity issues.


No. That's revisionist, plain and simple. Halo 1, Host was almost invincible. Even in LAN games. In Halo 3, the game would lag for minutes at a time and I'd just take damage from literally nowhere. And then my shields would fail to recharge. And then I'd keel over seemingly at random. I honestly cannot recall anything like that ever happening in Destiny. Even if its something similar, Destiny manages to give me a little idea of where the enemy is while Halo often wouldn't.

It's not revisionist at all. I never experienced any of the issues you describe.


- I think your suggestion that they rewrite the network stack is just plain silly. Surely you understand that what you are suggesting isn't just some minor task that can be completed over a weekend, or a week, or a month. And given that all of Destiny seems to run on the same type of networking vs the split types the Halos used, rewriting the networking and having both the Crucible and single player continue to function seems like a complete impossibility. But instead of acknowledging that you ding Bungie over and over for not doing it.


While I think a wholly new network stack would be ideal, it's clearly impossible. It's probably impossible for Destiny 2 also, unless they get loaned a network stack from another studio (not unheard of, but still unlikely, especially as Bungie prides themselves on doing it themselves). The realistic change I'm asking for is a change in how bullet damage polling works so that when I kill a guy on my system, he dies on my system, even if he hasn't died yet on his actual system (but will when he catches up). Bungie is already using predictive algorithms quite a bit - why not predict that I did enough damage to kill the guy? Then I won't be wasting more ammo on someone who is already dead.


I cannot believe that dropping in a new premade network stack to Destiny is anything other than impossible. No other studio has something that will power Destiny's Crucible, and Patrol, and Raids. It took Bungie multiple tries to get Raids to perform the way they wanted, and that was with their own code. Someone else's is just going to replace all that? Not a chance.

You did see where I said, "It's clearly impossible," right?

With regards to other studios, there's nothing that says crucible has to run on the same matchmaking schema as the rest of the game, and the netcode for patrol, missions, strikes, and raids works great.


I can't see your predictive death working well either. You kill the guy on your screen... except you didn't really kill him in actuality ... then what happens? A guy who the game showed you killing will magically comes back to life and kill you instead. What kind of solution is that? Maybe it works in one narrow case or even is balanced more in the favor of the player with a good connection, but overall it sounds at least as problematic as what happens now, if not more so.

What would happen is that when the guy's packets caught up, he'd die on his system, but he'd have already been dead on your system so you wouldn't be wasting rounds on him.

It's okay, there are other options. Bullets could pass through lagging players. Or lagging players could be put into "stasis" and made unable to move or act (or be acted upon) until they caught up (not ideal, but better than the current I think). Or connection quality standards could be put in place to prevent matches with any players who have a worse connection than the worst member of your fireteam. Even regional filtering to prevent overseas matches or games between players more than 1000 miles apart would be a big help. Hell, make a crucible playlist called "good connections only" and let people opt-in. My point is that there are many many things that could be done to reduce lag, and lag is a serious issue in Destiny, more so than in other games because the game makes the lagging player soak damage while he's lagging. If players had infinite rockets or super, it wouldn't matter, but because those are exceedingly limited resources, it's a big deal.


- Finally, I think perhaps we should stop talking about the possible advantages Destiny gives to laggers manipulating network traffic. Specifically: Those people are not laggers and lag is no longer the issue. Those people are cheaters and the best way to fix the problem, no matter how the networking does or doesn't work in their favor, would be to ban the heck out of them, delete their profiles, and tell them to never come back.


Agreed, and I've been trying to avoid that subject. My above posts are all aimed at general lag, not at lag switchers. A lag-switcher still gets real-time downward traffic, so they can see where you are and shoot you. Then when they switch their lag off, all of their bullets fire at once, and kill everyone they shot, all while they were effectively moving invisibly through the map. I have played against a couple of serious lag switchers in trials and it's not fun. You see a guy running into a wall for a bit and then all three players on your team are dead at once, all from the same guy who just teleported back behind you. Also: While I did encounter a pretty obvious lag switcher in salvage earlier this week, I haven't seen one in trials or IB for at least a month. Even though Bungie's been pretty mum on when they ban people and how many they ban, it seems to be pretty effective.


Yeah, I simply haven't seen that. Not saying it doesn't happen though. Trials seems to be the place people see the worst and most questionable lag and I don't hardly play it. The non-self-revive rules do not appeal to me. I'm actually quite good at Skirmish, it maybe be my best gametype, but I think my play style is just one step too risky and one step too adaptive (where Trials does not allow you to adapt mid round) to have much fun.

It seemed to have peaked during last summer, and has certainly died down as players have lost interest and/or been banned. Often it's hard to tell if someone is lag-switching or just lagging, but occasionally there's clear ghost murderers running around. Actually it's exceedingly rare. Maybe 1 out of 50 games right now for me. I'm on PS4, which may matter... I feel like PSN is inferior to Xbox Live and is less likely to filter out or remove players who are reported for cheating.

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by stabbim @, Des Moines, IA, USA, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:01 (3022 days ago) @ CyberKN

Oh goody, it's a PvP event. Guess I'll get some Fallout in or something.

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 21:11 (3022 days ago) @ stabbim

Oh goody, it's a PvP event. Guess I'll get some Fallout in or something.

Yeah, I was hoping for something else. SRL was PvP, too, I guess, but in a fun way. I can't really complain; PvP players need new and fun things to do as well, but doubles definitely won't be my cup of tea.

BWU 01/21/2016

by Avateur @, Friday, January 22, 2016, 01:45 (3022 days ago) @ stabbim

Eh, more temporary filler. Oh well. I guess they really did run out of content that was cut from launch to release to us for cash. Thank goodness I still find Destiny fun on its own. I'm starting to wonder how bad of a population hit this game has had since Taken King came out.

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Friday, January 22, 2016, 02:19 (3022 days ago) @ Avateur

Eh, more temporary filler. Oh well. I guess they really did run out of content that was cut from launch to release to us for cash. Thank goodness I still find Destiny fun on its own. I'm starting to wonder how bad of a population hit this game has had since Taken King came out.

I would think it gained some players since The Taken King was a much better release than Destiny 1.0.

BWU 01/21/2016

by Avateur @, Friday, January 22, 2016, 02:37 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Obviously, at first. And nothing has happened in months, aside from SRL. Destiny is not in the top 10 most played Xbox Live games (and Halo 5 is about to drop from that list, too, for a fun comparison of sorts). I can't imagine Destiny's population is doing too well compared to where it was without any real added content in months (especially with stiff competition from other games).

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Friday, January 22, 2016, 02:48 (3022 days ago) @ Avateur

Obviously, at first. And nothing has happened in months, aside from SRL. Destiny is not in the top 10 most played Xbox Live games (and Halo 5 is about to drop from that list, too, for a fun comparison of sorts). I can't imagine Destiny's population is doing too well compared to where it was without any real added content in months (especially with stiff competition from other games).

Where are you getting your information? I'm seeing Destiny as the 5th title in the Most Played section of the Xbox One store. I can't seem to find any other official lists.

BWU 01/21/2016

by Avateur @, Friday, January 22, 2016, 05:42 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Whoa, that's where my info's from, but I didn't check it immediately before posting. Just earlier this week, I had been looking at that thing with some others I was playing with, and we got a good laugh out of Halo 5's positioning and Destiny's lack thereof. Just checked it now, and I'm showing it at #7 and Halo 5 at #9. I wonder how frequently it updates.

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by stabbim @, Des Moines, IA, USA, Friday, January 22, 2016, 17:50 (3022 days ago) @ Avateur

Or maybe more to the point, how big of a timeframe it covers.

Avatar

BWU 01/21/2016

by Kahzgul, Friday, January 22, 2016, 04:28 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Eh, more temporary filler. Oh well. I guess they really did run out of content that was cut from launch to release to us for cash. Thank goodness I still find Destiny fun on its own. I'm starting to wonder how bad of a population hit this game has had since Taken King came out.


I would think it gained some players since The Taken King was a much better release than Destiny 1.0.

I agree. TTK was fantastic and a vast improvement over vanilla Destiny in terms of storytelling and player engagement. Of course, since then we've had a very similar endgame loop, and man oh man do I miss SRL. Even with just two tracks SRL was sooooooo fun. I hope valentines day is actually team SRL and not fighting.

Avatar

Couples SRL would be fun. :)

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Friday, January 22, 2016, 04:31 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

- No text -

Agreed

by Avateur @, Friday, January 22, 2016, 05:43 (3022 days ago) @ Ragashingo

- No text -

Avatar

+1 for SRL hopes

by CyberKN ⌂ @, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Friday, January 22, 2016, 15:44 (3022 days ago) @ Kahzgul

- No text -

Avatar

Bungie Brought It Upon Themselves.

by Morpheus @, High Charity, Friday, January 22, 2016, 01:10 (3022 days ago) @ CyberKN

[image]

Seeing all that crimson, there's only one option.

All of you are gonna have to mute me. For I swear, the whole week of Feb. 9th, every time my feet hit the Tower floor, I will be blasting this.

I won't blame you for blocking my gamertag.

Avatar

Was expecting King Crimson. Not entirely disappointed

by ZackDark @, Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Friday, January 22, 2016, 01:52 (3022 days ago) @ Morpheus

- No text -

Avatar

Was expecting King Crimson. Not entirely disappointed

by unoudid @, Somewhere over the rainbow, Friday, January 22, 2016, 14:04 (3022 days ago) @ ZackDark

I am hoping lord salad head will be standing off in a corner playing this song during the event

Back to the forum index
RSS Feed of thread