skill based damage is real.

[Barfunkle Shagnasty]

there is no conceivable way that my aek which does 40 damage to every single part of the body but the head (44) until 50.xx meters is not killing in a single burst nearly every time.

[nivbh]

Originally posted by thalx:

Originally posted by 76561198119401238:

there is no conceivable way that my aek which does 40 damage to every single part of the body but the head (44) until 50.xx meters is not killing in a single burst nearly every time.

No, that's nonsense. The reason for the behavior you observed is simply server lag, high latency or poor FPS. The opponent is not where it is displayed for the client. The hit markers are on the client side, but the server does not recognize the hits. The problem has existed since at least MW3. It is slightly better if you play on the console or with a controller, as the Aim Assist guides the bullets and the tolerance is greater.

He is one of the devs. Don’t listen to him

[Rabidnid]

Originally posted by nivbh:

Originally posted by thalx:

No, that's nonsense. The reason for the behavior you observed is simply server lag, high latency or poor FPS. The opponent is not where it is displayed for the client. The hit markers are on the client side, but the server does not recognize the hits. The problem has existed since at least MW3. It is slightly better if you play on the console or with a controller, as the Aim Assist guides the bullets and the tolerance is greater.

He is one of the devs. Don’t listen to him

We don't need rational and reasoned explanations for why something happens, we need more hysterical conspiracy theories.

[ouv]

Yeah, no other game has this issue and they push SBMM so hard...why wouldn't this be true?

[Nekochan]

Originally posted by arobro:

skill based damage is not real and anyone who says so is spreading misinformation. You are falling for conspiracy theories.

Hit detection is a complex, technical topic. There are many causes. One is what you see on your screen as a head, may be out of sync with what the server sees. This results in incorrect hit detection.

The issue here is the fact that previous games were peer to peer until about BO3 (?), at least Black Ops 2 was still peer to peer and while there were some lag issues and other things things were NEVER like this. This is 2024 and we have relay servers in-between and most of the people are running fiber, not some copper ADSL crap even.

Same thing, I've played Destiny 2 PvP for hundreds of hours and that game is still peer to peer and pvp population is only a fragment of the general population which means that sometimes the connections are between people who are not in optimal situation. Yet Destiny 2 comes on top in terms of hit detection when compared to MW3 and BO6 - especially BO6 is very problematic here.

It's not like people are pulling these examples out of thin air. Bit too many of these exist especially now. This discussion was already present during MW3 but BO6 made these things even more noticeable.

Don't blame the technology because it is better than ever before. Reliable networking technology for games has existed since Quake (1996) and it's pretty damning if a billion dollar company can suddenly just be so incompetent that they are ruining the experience of millions of players... These things don't happen by accident.
If it was an accident it would've been fixed by now but nothing really has happened on this front at all.
How long people have been suffering from random packet burst issues? Since Vanguard or MW2? Has nothing changed?

What is the worst part to me is that Activision sits silent and lets people argue with each other instead. This is not very ethical of them. And people already have pretty passionate feelings about these games one way or other.

[arobro]

Originally posted by Nekochan:

Originally posted by arobro:

skill based damage is not real and anyone who says so is spreading misinformation. You are falling for conspiracy theories.

Hit detection is a complex, technical topic. There are many causes. One is what you see on your screen as a head, may be out of sync with what the server sees. This results in incorrect hit detection.

The issue here is the fact that previous games were peer to peer until about BO3 (?), at least Black Ops 2 was still peer to peer and while there were some lag issues and other things things were NEVER like this. This is 2024 and we have relay servers in-between and most of the people are running fiber, not some copper ADSL crap even.

Same thing, I've played Destiny 2 PvP for hundreds of hours and that game is still peer to peer and pvp population is only a fragment of the general population which means that sometimes the connections are between people who are not in optimal situation. Yet Destiny 2 comes on top in terms of hit detection when compared to MW3 and BO6 - especially BO6 is very problematic here.

It's not like people are pulling these examples out of thin air. Bit too many of these exist especially now. This discussion was already present during MW3 but BO6 made these things even more noticeable.

Don't blame the technology because it is better than ever before. Reliable networking technology for games has existed since Quake (1996) and it's pretty damning if a billion dollar company can suddenly just be so incompetent that they are ruining the experience of millions of players... These things don't happen by accident.
If it was an accident it would've been fixed by now but nothing really has happened on this front at all.
How long people have been suffering from random packet burst issues? Since Vanguard or MW2? Has nothing changed?

What is the worst part to me is that Activision sits silent and lets people argue with each other instead. This is not very ethical of them. And people already have pretty passionate feelings about these games one way or other.

Your right, new COD games have slowly reduced p2p to now zero, which has resulted in worse connections.
Dedicated servers have higher ping.
Dedicated servers can be overloaded due to DDOS hacking or capacity issues.
Properly designed networking could increase the tick rate to infinity with a stream, rather than a tick.

Unfortunately, the community begged for Activision to use dedicated servers and they caved.

2014 - "Call of Duty is still using peer-to-peer communication to run their servers?
Seems like they are still in the stone age when most games nowadays are running fully on dedicated servers. A company like Activision get millions from a single release and they cannot spend the extra money to host dedicated servers?"

Another person in the same thread. - "The P2P system is definitely all about saving money."

Another person in same thread - "I do not like the idea of P2P servers."

Another person in same thread - "I need the system to work in order to play. Peer to Peer matchmaking doesn't work on PC worth a darn"

Another person in same thread - "They messed up the p2p"

[Valerie]

https://x.com/QjSaucey/status/1863685400046322153
https://x.com/CockofGold/status/1863654812845326514
https://x.com/notblametruth/status/1863685095493664807

Some fun examples of it just being wonky.

[tfa]

Originally posted by arobro:

Originally posted by Nekochan:

The issue here is the fact that previous games were peer to peer until about BO3 (?), at least Black Ops 2 was still peer to peer and while there were some lag issues and other things things were NEVER like this. This is 2024 and we have relay servers in-between and most of the people are running fiber, not some copper ADSL crap even.

Same thing, I've played Destiny 2 PvP for hundreds of hours and that game is still peer to peer and pvp population is only a fragment of the general population which means that sometimes the connections are between people who are not in optimal situation. Yet Destiny 2 comes on top in terms of hit detection when compared to MW3 and BO6 - especially BO6 is very problematic here.

It's not like people are pulling these examples out of thin air. Bit too many of these exist especially now. This discussion was already present during MW3 but BO6 made these things even more noticeable.

Don't blame the technology because it is better than ever before. Reliable networking technology for games has existed since Quake (1996) and it's pretty damning if a billion dollar company can suddenly just be so incompetent that they are ruining the experience of millions of players... These things don't happen by accident.
If it was an accident it would've been fixed by now but nothing really has happened on this front at all.
How long people have been suffering from random packet burst issues? Since Vanguard or MW2? Has nothing changed?

What is the worst part to me is that Activision sits silent and lets people argue with each other instead. This is not very ethical of them. And people already have pretty passionate feelings about these games one way or other.

Your right, new COD games have slowly reduced p2p to now zero, which has resulted in worse connections.
Dedicated servers have higher ping.
Dedicated servers can be overloaded due to DDOS hacking or capacity issues.
Properly designed networking could increase the tick rate to infinity with a stream, rather than a tick.

Unfortunately, the community begged for Activision to use dedicated servers and they caved.

2014 - "Call of Duty is still using peer-to-peer communication to run their servers?
Seems like they are still in the stone age when most games nowadays are running fully on dedicated servers. A company like Activision get millions from a single release and they cannot spend the extra money to host dedicated servers?"

Another person in the same thread. - "The P2P system is definitely all about saving money."

Another person in same thread - "I do not like the idea of P2P servers."

Another person in same thread - "I need the system to work in order to play. Peer to Peer matchmaking doesn't work on PC worth a darn"

Another person in same thread - "They messed up the p2p"

PC CoD had matchmaking starting with MW 2 2009 and they did not use P2P and never had any of these issues from MW 2 to Black Ops 4.

[arobro]

Originally posted by tfa:

Originally posted by arobro:

Your right, new COD games have slowly reduced p2p to now zero, which has resulted in worse connections.
Dedicated servers have higher ping.
Dedicated servers can be overloaded due to DDOS hacking or capacity issues.
Properly designed networking could increase the tick rate to infinity with a stream, rather than a tick.

Unfortunately, the community begged for Activision to use dedicated servers and they caved.

2014 - "Call of Duty is still using peer-to-peer communication to run their servers?
Seems like they are still in the stone age when most games nowadays are running fully on dedicated servers. A company like Activision get millions from a single release and they cannot spend the extra money to host dedicated servers?"

Another person in the same thread. - "The P2P system is definitely all about saving money."

Another person in same thread - "I do not like the idea of P2P servers."

Another person in same thread - "I need the system to work in order to play. Peer to Peer matchmaking doesn't work on PC worth a darn"

Another person in same thread - "They messed up the p2p"

PC CoD had matchmaking starting with MW 2 2009 and they did not use P2P and never had any of these issues from MW 2 to Black Ops 4.

The match-making is separate from the in-game networking. When people say p2p, they mean one player is host.

Here is the screenshot that from COD showing the p2p. "pick a new host, evaluating clients" https://ibb.co/GWsGmPX

COD4 and earlier on pc had a dedicated server browser using community servers.
MW2 on pc introduced match-making but used p2p networking in-game.

Advanced Warfare introduced hybrid dedicated servers / p2p. The p2p was phased out in the newer cod games. MW 2019 according to some has a p2p as a backup.

[SwoleBoiBrolific-]

FIG. 3B illustrates a table providing an exemplary list of parameters of a gameplay session that are modified based on a player’s skill level and the corresponding experience for players of different skill levels. For example, in a first-shooter gaming environment, when a first player aims his weapon at a target, a parameter defining the tolerance for how accurate the player’s aim must be to hit the target is modified based on the acquired skill level of the player. The computer assigns the tolerance for how accurate the player’s aim must be to hit the target differently based on the skill level of the first player. A player having a higher skill level will be assigned a lower tolerance parameter and therefore, will have to be more accurate in aiming in order to hit the target. A player having a lower skill level be assigned a higher tolerance parameter and, therefore, could be less accurate in aiming in order to hit the target.

Its litterally the perfect scheme cus the nay sayers are the ones benefiting from it, they are allowed to not be as accurate as you to get a kill, but will be the ones to say "skill issue" without even realising they are the ones activision is allowing to play with a handicap..
And its all designed as a feel good casino type driven ideology that keeps you wanting to play. " just one more, just one more game and well get it this time!"

[tfa]

Originally posted by arobro:

Originally posted by tfa:

PC CoD had matchmaking starting with MW 2 2009 and they did not use P2P and never had any of these issues from MW 2 to Black Ops 4.

The match-making is separate from the in-game networking. When people say p2p, they mean one player is host.

Here is the screenshot that from COD showing the p2p. "pick a new host, evaluating clients" https://ibb.co/GWsGmPX

COD4 and earlier on pc had a dedicated server browser using community servers.
MW2 on pc introduced match-making but used p2p networking in-game.

Advanced Warfare introduced hybrid dedicated servers / p2p. The p2p was phased out in the newer cod games. MW 2019 according to some has a p2p as a backup.

PC CoD had matchmaking since 2009 but used company run dedicated servers for PC. I've played every single CoD on PC and have never once seen a host migration. You're excuse that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P is wrong since PC CoD never had these issues until recently.

[arobro]

Originally posted by SwoleBoiBrolific-:

FIG. 3B illustrates a table providing an exemplary list of parameters of a gameplay session that are modified based on a player’s skill level and the corresponding experience for players of different skill levels. For example, in a first-shooter gaming environment, when a first player aims his weapon at a target, a parameter defining the tolerance for how accurate the player’s aim must be to hit the target is modified based on the acquired skill level of the player. The computer assigns the tolerance for how accurate the player’s aim must be to hit the target differently based on the skill level of the first player. A player having a higher skill level will be assigned a lower tolerance parameter and therefore, will have to be more accurate in aiming in order to hit the target. A player having a lower skill level be assigned a higher tolerance parameter and, therefore, could be less accurate in aiming in order to hit the target.

Its litterally the perfect scheme cus the nay sayers are the ones benefiting from it, they are allowed to not be as accurate as you to get a kill, but will be the ones to say "skill issue" without even realising they are the ones activision is allowing to play with a handicap..
And its all designed as a feel good casino type driven ideology that keeps you wanting to play. " just one more, just one more game and well get it this time!"

You are quoting a research patent, one that has been outright denied by Activision as being in the game.
Do you login into call of duty with your human sweat? There are so many things in this patent that are outrageously false.

These patents play into those who don't understand what a patent is. All large companies register these ideas to stop them from being sued. Most of the world doesn't recognise them because patents are dumb.

These social media content creators are the ones manipulating you, who will do anything to get some advertising money. You are falling for misinformation.

[arobro]

Originally posted by tfa:

Originally posted by arobro:

The match-making is separate from the in-game networking. When people say p2p, they mean one player is host.

Here is the screenshot that from COD showing the p2p. "pick a new host, evaluating clients" https://ibb.co/GWsGmPX

COD4 and earlier on pc had a dedicated server browser using community servers.
MW2 on pc introduced match-making but used p2p networking in-game.

Advanced Warfare introduced hybrid dedicated servers / p2p. The p2p was phased out in the newer cod games. MW 2019 according to some has a p2p as a backup.

PC CoD had matchmaking since 2009 but used company run dedicated servers for PC. I've played every single CoD on PC and have never once seen a host migration. You're excuse that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P is wrong since PC CoD never had these issues until recently.

These host migrations were frequent for many, I got one in advanced warefare a few weeks ago. Those COD games after MW2 use p2p.
https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Host_Migration
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/951943-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/52468856

Some conspiracy social media creators want to claim manipulations were introduced in advanced warfare and the p2p hosting doesn't fit their agenda, so they use alternative facts.

P2P is not an excuse, its one of maths. There is no server in my country. If I want to play COD with my neighbour, all traffic has to go overseas and back. This takes 33ms each way. If I play classic cod, 5ms.

I haven't verified it, or seen it, but p2p may be used in least until MW 2019 as a backup as there are videos of 'host migration' in mw 2019.

Games are very complex and there will be multiple factors that contribute to the cause. The problems in BO6 runs much deeper. Essentially the netcode that helps to 'smooth out' the lag is broken, probably because of unintended consequences of the omni-movement.

[tfa]

Originally posted by arobro:

Originally posted by tfa:

PC CoD had matchmaking since 2009 but used company run dedicated servers for PC. I've played every single CoD on PC and have never once seen a host migration. You're excuse that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P is wrong since PC CoD never had these issues until recently.

These host migrations were frequent for many, I got one in advanced warefare a few weeks ago. Those COD games after MW2 use p2p.
https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Host_Migration
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/951943-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/52468856

Some conspiracy social media creators want to claim manipulations were introduced in advanced warfare and the p2p hosting doesn't fit their agenda, so they use alternative facts.

P2P is not an excuse, its one of maths. There is no server in my country. If I want to play COD with my neighbour, all traffic has to go overseas and back. This takes 33ms each way. If I play classic cod, 5ms.

I haven't verified it, or seen it, but p2p may be used in least until MW 2019 as a backup as there are videos of 'host migration' in mw 2019.

Games are very complex and there will be multiple factors that contribute to the cause. The problems in BO6 runs much deeper. Essentially the netcode that helps to 'smooth out' the lag is broken, probably because of unintended consequences of the omni-movement.

Looks like they're speaking of the console version when they say hybrid was introduced with Advanced Warfare. It appears the PC version always had hybrid since I never once saw a host migration in any PC CoD ever in the US.

You were saying that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P. No because PC CoD's never had this issue until thew last few years. It's because they dedicated servers they now use are cheaper than what PC used to have.

[arobro]

Originally posted by tfa:

Originally posted by arobro:

These host migrations were frequent for many, I got one in advanced warefare a few weeks ago. Those COD games after MW2 use p2p.
https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Host_Migration
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/951943-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/52468856

Some conspiracy social media creators want to claim manipulations were introduced in advanced warfare and the p2p hosting doesn't fit their agenda, so they use alternative facts.

P2P is not an excuse, its one of maths. There is no server in my country. If I want to play COD with my neighbour, all traffic has to go overseas and back. This takes 33ms each way. If I play classic cod, 5ms.

I haven't verified it, or seen it, but p2p may be used in least until MW 2019 as a backup as there are videos of 'host migration' in mw 2019.

Games are very complex and there will be multiple factors that contribute to the cause. The problems in BO6 runs much deeper. Essentially the netcode that helps to 'smooth out' the lag is broken, probably because of unintended consequences of the omni-movement.

Looks like they're speaking of the console version when they say hybrid was introduced with Advanced Warfare. It appears the PC version always had hybrid since I never once saw a host migration in any PC CoD ever in the US.

You were saying that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P. No because PC CoD's never had this issue until thew last few years. It's because they dedicated servers they now use are cheaper than what PC used to have.

When they say hybird, it means the game will choose between either a server or p2p depending on network conditions.

All the classic cod games uses p2p, including on pc. For the record, I've only ever played on pc and have played all the CODs.

Here is me recently playing AW on Steam with host migration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_0QBk7dlWM

[tfa]

Originally posted by arobro:

Originally posted by tfa:

Looks like they're speaking of the console version when they say hybrid was introduced with Advanced Warfare. It appears the PC version always had hybrid since I never once saw a host migration in any PC CoD ever in the US.

You were saying that dedicated servers cause more issues than P2P. No because PC CoD's never had this issue until thew last few years. It's because they dedicated servers they now use are cheaper than what PC used to have.

When they say hybird, it means the game will choose between either a server or p2p depending on network conditions.

All the classic cod games uses p2p, including on pc. For the record, I've only ever played on pc and have played all the CODs.

Here is me recently playing AW on Steam with host migration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_0QBk7dlWM

Well it appears PC CoD had hybrid servers beginning with MW 2 2009 and they didn't have dedicated servers in your area. You can't blame dedicated severs in general for the current issues. You have to blame Activsion for using cheap servers.