Discussion: 50 - 60 latency cap. Read this ubisoft. | Forums

[Goat_of_Vermund]

I used to have really high, really inconsistent ping, and wired connection almost perfectly solved it. I have avarage internet in one of the poorer European countries, so my assumption is wifi does this. There are also those guys doing it on purpose.

The solution would be simple: until like 50 ping, the players should get lag compensation. Over that, none. Or if someone has 150+ for even a second, he/she should be booted instantly.

[garr1999]

YAs an american I have 60 latency on my wireless connection
for us Europeans lag on our end.

In both ways we are all lagging because servers
are trying to reach but it ends up with bad communication
from both servers even if you have good connections or not.

The servers are what predict the actions of the player in front of you and
their might be lagswitchers and the such but I think most of us can tell
when the servers fluctuate in the match because of the lagswitch.

Remember that we have dedicated servers and we know how "good" they are
decent but some problems here and there if you catch my drift.

Quality isn't rly ubi's strong suit especially when the devs are stuck in limbo
when it comes to quality of life changes, updates, and content.

The operation health phase of for honor season 6 to 7 for example wasn't
rly the greatest time for them especially when the servers collapsed mid season.

Everyone was complaining about how bad the servers were and why they
were not getting fixed when they were told when it was going to be then
they said that the servers were "hacked" (probably) so it was going to take
more days to be fixed.

it was a rly boring, frustrating time as well.

[EvoX.]

If I had the authority to decide this, I would implement a system similar to the one described by Goat. Losing benefits of the game the higher your ping is, and once it reaches a certain amount - you're out. Personally, I'd make it so lag compensation is void after 60 ping. If the player reaches 100 three times in a match, he's out. Anything above 150 would be an instant kick.

I guess I should clarify that I don't care in the slightest what circumstances someone might have or how much they want to play with a buddy on the other side of the globe, or any of that nonsense. High ping should have zero tollerance regardless of anything in any game ever. The only variable here is how low can the bar for acceptible latency be set.

[Herbstlicht]

300 latency cap sucks. 60 would not work. Make it 100 or 120 with like allowing a max of 1 full second with a latency as bad as 120. Thing is people are going to play on wlan. Specially in a console environment. So there might be those occasions people have spikes in there connection.

However, for matchmaking, using a maximum of a 60is ping as average should be Standart. The game should never, ever, Start a match with people that got above 60 ping.

So yes, personally, I would love higher quality connection games.

[Knight_Raime]

I would love to see your proof of said players asking for latency caps. Even if they are asking for them I strongly disagree with such a proposal.
Latency is not the sole thing that impacts a players quality in match. How good their connection to their server is also a major factor.

I currently live in the USA. In for honor's case my ping is almost always in the 40-50 range on my own USA servers. When I play with my group of friends (all of which who live in various countries outside the USA,) my average ping sits somewhere between 60-80. If my internet decides to be cruddy that day closer to 100. I personally don't ever really notice a big discrepancy between my performance and the enemies. In fact I tend to run into more spikes of connection based problems when I play in my turf versus my groups turf.

And I can easily vouch for seeing people have instantanious attacks with ping in the 30's area both in my own experience and from watching people like Clutch and Craic. The only games i'm aware of that actively limit you from region MM are games that have a terrible online structure. This is most commonly seen in street fighter games and anime fighting games done by Arc systems. I haven't seen this region lock thing for FPS's but i'm sure it exists.

Besides the fact that limiting latency to so low doesn't actually prevent your issue from happening entirely you're also basically telling people who live in places like Australia to go screw themselves. Since other countries besides the big ones like USA and EU have drastically less players playing the game on average. I can agree that 300 latency is too high of a bench to have to consistently sit at in order to be removed from the game. But 60 is far too low. 100-120 would be the lowest you could reasonably go.

[KitingFatKidsEZ]

In fact I tend to run into more spikes of connection based problems when I play in my turf versus my groups turf.

I have seen several people make this statement and quite frankly its more of a red flag for how For-Honor's lag compensation resolves lagging people vs non lagging - according to these statements - always in favor of the person who lags more.

[Knight_Raime]

I have seen several people make this statement and quite frankly its more of a red flag for how For-Honor's lag compensation resolves lagging people vs non lagging - according to these statements - always in favor of the person who lags more.

-shrug- I've had maybe 3 occurances in my entire FH career where someone who was lag spiking very noticeably actually beat me because my attacks were not registering against him. A vast majority of my experiences has been both the lagger and myself end up being horribly confused and being hit by things or not hit by things when the opposite should be true. And if I were really lagging bad enough then most players who fight me should have a difficult time dealing with me. Yet that's never the case.

I might not have as much game sense/good reactions compared to competitive players, but i'm fairly decent with my eyes. I can tell when a move is a few frames faster than it should be most of the time. And I don't usually see that when connecting to different regions.

[Herbstlicht]

I would love to see your proof of said players asking for latency caps. Even if they are asking for them I strongly disagree with such a proposal.
Latency is not the sole thing that impacts a players quality in match. How good their connection to their server is also a major factor.

I currently live in the USA. In for honor's case my ping is almost always in the 40-50 range on my own USA servers. When I play with my group of friends (all of which who live in various countries outside the USA,) my average ping sits somewhere between 60-80. If my internet decides to be cruddy that day closer to 100. I personally don't ever really notice a big discrepancy between my performance and the enemies. In fact I tend to run into more spikes of connection based problems when I play in my turf versus my groups turf.

And I can easily vouch for seeing people have instantanious attacks with ping in the 30's area both in my own experience and from watching people like Clutch and Craic. The only games i'm aware of that actively limit you from region MM are games that have a terrible online structure. This is most commonly seen in street fighter games and anime fighting games done by Arc systems. I haven't seen this region lock thing for FPS's but i'm sure it exists.

Besides the fact that limiting latency to so low doesn't actually prevent your issue from happening entirely you're also basically telling people who live in places like Australia to go screw themselves. Since other countries besides the big ones like USA and EU have drastically less players playing the game on average. I can agree that 300 latency is too high of a bench to have to consistently sit at in order to be removed from the game. But 60 is far too low. 100-120 would be the lowest you could reasonably go.

Well, then how about giving people options? Like a ping slider: 60, 120, unlimited. Now we are free to choose between waiting longer and having matches of better quality because there are individuals that certainly would prefer this, Vs those that don't care, likely get games faster and everyone does win, right?
Of course, even those that don't care will have increased wait times. But choice would be the very best thing to do in my opinion.

[Knight_Raime]

Well, then how about giving people options? Like a ping slider: 60, 120, unlimited. Now we are free to choose between waiting longer and having matches of better quality because there are individuals that certainly would prefer this, Vs those that don't care, likely get games faster and everyone does win, right?
Of course, even those that don't care will have increased wait times. But choice would be the very best thing to do in my opinion.

That would be acceptable.

[Grivois_Gaulois]

I do agree that a cap should be applied to prevent lag exploiters to ruin games, for they do it quite often. Nowadays I find myself frequently spending more time reporting high ping players than actually playing the game...

Also and more importantly I think there should be a ping tracker during games showing min and max pings reached in last score board. Those data could be easily used by players to report curious highly variations of pings and therefore help banning lag switchers as lag exploiters.