procreate Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 R1 or no R1, i cant find a game where lag isnt horrendous. i quit playing BO2 before 3rd DLC drop. now even when i go back it is horrible... i dont mean bad i mean it is unplayable crap for me. even in hardcore i unload a clip into a person with no kill. tonight for example i played Ghosts and was 3+KDR every game [i know how to aim] and in BO2 didnt break 0.5KDR. i thought AW was took the honor of worst CoD made but i still think BO2 holds it... and i have no hope for BO3. looks like i am a year out until my next CoD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltr7 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I've been reliving the days of old lately as well, ran through the whole line up the other day from cod4 on up and I must say that mw3 and bo1 were the only playable titles imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PharmDawgg Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I know for me i did not get AW because I knew I would not like it but now I am going through COD withdrawals. Ghosts is not quinching my COD thirst right now. I can pretty much guarantee that BO3 is going to have some BS in it but with Treyarch I do not believe it will be as bad a AW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PharmDawgg Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Sorry double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 i play Ghosts and it is spot on in every respect. only downsides are IEDs and dogs. but hit detection and lag comp are far superior. sure there are a few BS deaths from time to time but my BS factor in BO2 is at its peak level. what irritates me is i have an enemies back and shooting a whole clip for nothing... reload and shoot another half clip to kill them IN HARDCORE! that should NEVER happen. if they were facing me it would be my death. sometimes they arent facing me and i shoot them and they turn and shoot me IN HARDCORE! grrrrrrrrrr. i came so close to just breaking my BO2 disc tonight. its pure shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltr7 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 bo2 does use the same crap deds as aw could be something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 and BTW. its not like i am some punk who never really gave it a shot, i hit master prestige in it... not sure how except for some sado-masochisitic urge but i have plenty of in game time with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lthoma89 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Bo2 is literally the worst cod for me but of they would've fixed the connection, could have been the best for me. I wonder if the majority of players have lag comp or whatever its called issues. I also wished they changed the vsat in bo2 so only the person who earned it benefited from it. In bo3 we are "supposed" to be able to fight the vsat but only god knows what that means. Hate going 15-2 at the start of a match and hearing "hostile orbital vsat online." Makes me rage quit everytime lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatDansby Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Blops 2 isn't the smoothest Cod for me but I haven't had a really smooth experience since Blops 1. Mw3 and every game since has played pretty poorly for me thanks to how they implement lag compensation to try to get rid of host/ping advantage. People would always tell me "get better internet" yes I have a 75/75 fiber connection. The other comment I would get is "you need to get better and stop complaining". I held a k/d over 2.80 and spm over 550 in every COD from blops 1 through Ghosts with my highest K/d being in Ghosts at a 3.5 with a upper 500 spm.... I'm pretty sure I've peaked when it comes to my skill. That being said Ghosts and Mw3 to me are by far my least favorite cods because they are littered with bs and the latency in them is horrid as well. It's different for everyone but when speaking about latency the games that played best to worst in order for me are 1) Blops 1 2) Mw2 3) Cod4 4)WaW 5)Ghosts and Blops 2 felt the same 6) Mw3 7) Advanced warfare.....by far the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 see, thats so odd because Ghosts is spot on for me. BO2 lags horribly. BO1 had horrible hit detection but the lag wasnt so bad. MW3 WAS pretty good until past week when i played it but could have been something up that week. MW2 was always great hit detection/lag as well. same with COD4. W@W varied. the other thing i noticed last night playing BO2 is that core TDM is a damn sniper fest. went to play HC because i got tired of being quicscoped and hearing 80% of the lobby using snipers with them constantly going off all game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JConnor Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 AW is based on the BO2 engine... As will BO3 (all are on a modified Q3 engine that is 16-years old, now!). So, anybody expecting better performance is kidding themselves. BO2 has terrible hit detection... Even on LAN. Play a Private Match with bots and you have to unload an entire clip to just kill one person. The reason for the bad netcode and hit detection is Activision fired the original net coder who did CoD4-MW3. This includes BO, so this is why that title (even though Treyarch) has very good netcode. All CoDs after MW3... Sans Ghosts... Uses a new version of the netcode that is just f-ed up because they didn't have a lead programmer. It works, but not like it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PharmDawgg Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 16 years. Wow. That is crazy. Because they do not want to pay the money to improve the game I guess we have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JConnor Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 16 years. Wow. That is crazy. Because they do not want to pay the money to improve the game I guess we have to. Exactly. Investing in new engines (tech) would cost them too much... Typical of a multi-BILLION dollar company like Activision. "Do more with less" so we can have more. It's the 'Murican way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JConnor Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 On a serious, related note... Myself and others investigated that one of the main problems with the Activision servers... and P2P hosts since it is hard-coded... Is the server tick rates are TOO LOW for a game like AW that has so much rapid movement. We play at 60fps (on console), so the server tick rate should be at least equal to that to ensure an optimal gaming experience. We learned the current tick rates for servers is HALF that (30), so approx. half of what we see on screen is NOT being rendered to the fullest. Thirty was fine for older CoDs that ran at 30fps, and for less complicated games with normal movement (MW series; Ghosts; BO), but when you up the amount of data updates the way AW runs, thirty becomes a problem. It's still playable, obviously, but it is another QoL -- Quality of Life -- Thing Activision could easily spend the money on upgrading (changing the code) so that the current server tick = current fps. This would change other timings within the game... like animations... But that is something Activision and the devs could easily fix if they were so inclined. Instead, we are playing on what amount to decades old hardware in these data centers / server farms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 At this point I do think it's activisions fault for letting 3arc/shg continue with their fork of a really old engine. IW seems to fare better but what the franchise NEEDS to do is develop one singular mordern multiplayer engine that is in continual use. It's always being tweaked for performance improvement and not for bells and whistles. I think it needs to move to it's own game as an online arena with map packs dropping every month or two continually with a large historical map archive of all the old CoD. Guns, killstreaks... Sell in game camos for mDLC but not pay to win stuff. Cosmetic things. I don't play campaign... So that is money wasted IMO by the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Truth of it is, when you buy the game, you're only purchasing the single player campaign. The multi-player side of things is technically a bonus granted at Activisions discretion, and they can do what ever the hell they want with that side of things. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JConnor Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 At this point I do think it's activisions fault for letting 3arc/shg continue with their fork of a really old engine. IW seems to fare better but what the franchise NEEDS to do is develop one singular mordern multiplayer engine that is in continual use. It's always being tweaked for performance improvement and not for bells and whistles. I think it needs to move to it's own game as an online arena with map packs dropping every month or two continually with a large historical map archive of all the old CoD. Guns, killstreaks... Sell in game camos for mDLC but not pay to win stuff. Cosmetic things. I don't play campaign... So that is money wasted IMO by the company. There is an online-only version of CoD in China, of all places... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 I think the majority buy for the multiplayer... Campaign is useless wasted money on voice actors and game development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 There is an online-only version of CoD in China, of all places... Maybe that's their new engine they are using China as a big beta and sales model. It's free to play with in game purchases. I would rather see a subscription model personally and have in game purchases only be for cosmetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.