Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Battlefield 4 Chat
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Here's my opinion. I work in games design now, so quite literally, right today we're working on network code for our next game. So, I'm pretty deep into this sort of problem.
There are three main possible problems with any lag-related issues. Its either the connection of the player... which is characterised by the player having a bad experience while others arent. Its the server hardware/OS/connection etc... which is characterised by everyone having a bad experience on that server but not others. Or its the game code, which is characterised by a perpetually bad experience for all.
Now, thats the basics... and like any basics, there are some big exceptions. The code could be flawed but that flaw only shows in certain configurations. It might be a problem with the way it runs on Win8 and not Win7. It could be memory management which only shows up when the user doesnt have their swap file on an SSD. There's a lot of possibles, but the main rules tend to apply.
Now toss in the problems that they are supporting three majorly different architectures between Ps3 vs xbox 360 vs X86 (PC, Xbone, Ps4) and that third category is VERY loosely similar!
In this case I think its actually a little from all of the above issues.
I'm one of those people who hasnt really had a lot of issues with the game. It rarely crashed (after we got past the first few weeks) and I dont get a lot of rubberbanding (or if I do, its almost always the server and switching server fixes it).
The biggest single problem I think they have is the tick rate. Its quite low. Tickrate is sort of like the end of turn in a board game. Its when everything gets resolved and the server sends out an update to let everyone know the new state of things. Thats a pretty broad definition but its good enough for this post. Moves can come in any time during the "turn" but arent going to get resolved until the turn is over.
You might be saying "Dev, wtf are you talking about... I dont notice any 'turns'" .. thats because the tickrate for Bf4 is typically something like 10 ticks a sec at max. That seems pretty fast but its not and it can drop to 5 on bad servers. And thats woefully slow.
The more "ticks" a second the smoother the game is going to feel when you are interacting with a multiplayer "object" (anything which can be affected in everyones game). Otherwise what can happen is that you fire at the start of a "turn" and the shot isnt registered by the server and everyone else until a tenth of a second later. Add standard lag to that and it can be 180ms later... that will feel pretty awful.
One of the ways to deal with this is to "expect" what the enemy is going to do. If I last saw you going from A to B at 30 mph... I can predict where you are before getting an update. Problem is if I predict you going to B and in the mean time, you turn around and go to C... now my client has to do a big change to put you where you should be. If the client makes that change all-of-a-sudden it looks awful so they "smooth" a transition from B over to C... which means I see you somewhere you arent, and for some time too, probably several ticks.
The problem is, if you up the tick rate, the server has to do a lot more work a lot faster. With 12 player games like titanfall, thats one thing... with 64 player games, thats something else
In that case, server-lag gets worse and you've just moved the problem down the line.0 -
-
-
Those are the technical issues ... the real problems lie in the management issues imho. The game is now out for what, 6 months? That means its not a technical issue any more really. Its a lack of will to tackle the problems. Part of this is the "eaten bread is soon forgotten" issue. We've bought premium, they have the money and probably given the numbers, there arent all that many people about to buy more DLC for BF4. Its certainly not something they would be doing if they didnt HAVE to do it for the Premium users, contractually. (I also think thats why they are rushing them out... to get out of the minimum contractual obligation to the premium buyers and get away from the whole francise).
I wouldnt be surprised if this was the last BF game in this sort of format. I only just started playing BF with 4 and I wouldnt be buying premium again. I'd wait to see if they released a good game and probably just play that for a while.
They have sh*t the bed with BF4. Theres no recovery from this disaster in terms of ever looking "good" again. The numbers are dwindling and it isnt sustaining monetaraily. I would guess they want rid of it as fast as possible but they cant for legal reasons.
For a time I believed the reason they were pushing the DLC's out in such rapid succession was primarily related to the "cooling off" period needed for promotion before the next DICE project announcement (perhaps at E3). But now I'm more inclined to agree with your theory in that I think the reason we're seeing such an onslaught of DLC is because of this whole fiasco and how badly they've managed and overseen the subsequent PR shiitstorm. IMHO I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a direct successor to the direct line of the Battlefield franchise (not a spin-off) for quite some time.
As you've alluded to I, too, think they just want to get the remaining promised content out the door so they can wash their hands of this entire ordeal to focus on future works. If it wasn't for Premium contractual obligations this is certainly not something they'd be dedicating resources towards. EA have the Titanfall brand to build-up and solidify over the coming years in addition to Battlefront next year to coincide with the release of the new Star Wars movie which is launching in December 2015 if memory serves. DICE will then require another two years to develop the next Battlefield game so realistically we could be looking at four years without a Battlefield product. Perhaps after Final Stand is released in September, this forum could become a very lonely place for a while.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I wouldnt be surprised if this was the last BF game in this sort of format.IMHO I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a direct successor to the direct line of the Battlefield franchise (not a spin-off) for quite some time.
...
DICE will then require another two years to develop the next Battlefield game so realistically we could be looking at four years without a Battlefield product. Perhaps after Final Stand is released in September, this forum could become a very lonely place for a while.
Unlikely.
DICE have just switched development of Battlefield over to DICE LA, so I have a feeling the new studio will probably want to impress and change the ideology of the BF series. We can only hope.0 -
Gotta agree with Devore on the management analysis, but I can't see the idea of large team-based FPSs going away. Too many people liked BF3 and - with caveats - BF4 for the idea of that product to go away (and that's to say nothing of the other products that do this sort of thing, like Tribes - but Battlefield has probably the most immersive experience of the lot). They've got a hard problem (in the technical sense of that term) to solve in the networking code, but that's engineering, and if you know nothing else about engineers, know this - smart engineers went from not knowing how to launch a man into orbit safely to sending one to the moon and back (along with all the fun stuff like in-orbit rendezvous and docking and so on) in less than a decade, simultaneously developing the foundations for most of the things in the modern world. Smart engineers go through hard problems like teenagers go through porn and usually with about the same degree of enthusiasm
0 -
MajesticDonkey wrote: »Unlikely.
DICE have just switched development of Battlefield over to DICE LA, so I have a feeling the new studio will probably want to impress and change the ideology of the BF series. We can only hope.
I hope you're right.
I love Battlefield as a concept. They could release a new Battlefield frequently and if there were no series issues with the netcode in addition to pushing the limits of their imagination and talent (which they undoubtedly have in buckets) I'd buy all their products. What I take exception to is the short-cuts taken. If they gave us a product and service that actually worked 100% of the time, then they could put out a new game every week for all I care...
0 -
-
-
Gotta agree with Devore on the management analysis, but I can't see the idea of large team-based FPSs going away. Too many people liked BF3 and - with caveats - BF4 for the idea of that product to go away (and that's to say nothing of the other products that do this sort of thing, like Tribes - but Battlefield has probably the most immersive experience of the lot). They've got a hard problem (in the technical sense of that term) to solve in the networking code, but that's engineering, and if you know nothing else about engineers, know this - smart engineers went from not knowing how to launch a man into orbit safely to sending one to the moon and back (along with all the fun stuff like in-orbit rendezvous and docking and so on) in less than a decade, simultaneously developing the foundations for most of the things in the modern world. Smart engineers go through hard problems like teenagers go through porn and usually with about the same degree of enthusiasm
I agree with you fully in that I don't think large team based shooters are going away anytime soon but will it be released under the Battlefield brand name given recent events? Say EA announce Battlefield 5 for an October release. I'm hard pressed to think that they wouldn't receive a hailstorm of negative blowback in the form of "fix 4 before releasing 5" etc etc nevermind the smaller pre-order numbers.
To me it makes perfect business sense to sit back and take the figurative foot off the peddle with the Battlefield series for a while and focus on releasing their shooters under another name. We all know Battlefront will be Battlefield 2143 in some shape and form. The difference being that the Battlefront name hasn't been dragged through the mud over the last couple of months.0 -
Well.Part of the problem is that the great engineers are going to be concentrated on the developments that have the greatest potential for great profit
If you said the great engineers were going to be pointed at other problems, yeah, but if you let great engineers pick the problems they work on (and that's pretty much the biggest - if not the only - upside to the startup culture), then it's not quite so true.
But that's business -v- engineering for you
I don't think EA listens to that.the community is so loudly telling them its broken.
They look at how many sales they have and then how many people post on (say) the official battlefield forums and one number is a lot larger than the other, so I wouldn't be shocked if they discounted most of the complaints as minor.
The lawsuits and the critical panning of the game, I imagine those get more of their attention.
Also, CoD peaked a few games back; but I don't see them dropping the franchise, they're just changing the development process so they stagger releases between two studios with each new release leapfrogging the other. You get something that's produced as much cash as CoD:MW did, and you'd have to have a serious amount of confidence to drop that franchise.
I think we won't see BF5 until we're seeing a new hardware generation coming up in either PC graphics or consoles though, and if it was on a new engine, that'd be no surprise either.
Yeah, but that's never stopped FPSs selling in the past. Some people just get a kick out of uncomplicated games.You guide the crosshairs onto a point, and push the button. Rinse an repeat.
You're arguing that tabloids can't last because everyone wants a newspaper that doesn't have deep analysis and complex social debate and a newspaper that specialises in scantily clad girls can't compete.
And you're forgetting that if you get a new FPS every two years, well, you also get a load of new teenagers showing up to buy it every two years as well (and the audience demographics kindof skew that way). If you just want a cash cow...
(Oh, and what's Final Fantasy up to at this stage? 27? And let's not talk about the plumber...)
I think it's more than enough. BF4's launch was abysmal, and they've taken a beating over it but EA can steal the leapfrog trick from CoD to try to avoid that in future. And so long as they can make even sane profits from the franchise, they'll milk it like a cow until it turns inside out through the teat, that's what EA do bestThe reason BF has a chance is that its got a lot more depth and "agency" about it. The player has many strategic choices and roles to play. Thats why I got into it and thats why I still play it but I dunno if thats going to be enough. 0 -
I think we won't see BF5 until we're seeing a new hardware generation coming up in either PC graphics or consoles though, and if it was on a new engine, that'd be no surprise either.
You honestly don't think we'll see another Battlefield until next gen? Christ on a bike....the last consoles lasted..what.....8 years?! 0 -
You honestly don't think we'll see another Battlefield until next gen? Christ on a bike....the last consoles lasted..what.....8 years?!
Next gen in PC land is a lot faster than next gen in console land (hellooooo TitanX!), but I don't think you'll be waiting 8 years there either. And honestly, I don't see BF5 being a 2015 title unless they've already started in on it somewhere. These AAA titles take too long to develop. 2016 maybe?
You might see a reduction in the number of supported platforms as well, that's caused no end of fun as some of those interviews have shown.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement