why u no buy pc and play

COD: Lag Ops is my least favorite COD.

No, seriously, I got it on the 360 (have the other ones I play on PC, my laptop won't run that shit happily though, methinks) and got annoyed/bored/done with it in about a month or less because of this exact problem. Game's fucking broken, it ruins precision weapons and makes automatic guns with their spread OP'd in comparison.

Moving this video to NordlichReiter's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by JAPR.

I used to play Quake 2 with tremendous amounts of "leg", and I still placed #1 in most matches. You improvise, adapt and overcome.

Or you could just whinge about it.

Different games handle lag differently.

I remember playing CS against people with bad connections (mine was good). Sometimes I would run past a door successfully, only to be pulled back to the door and die due to lag compensation (it calculated where I was when the laggy guy fired, not where I was when the server received it).

I wonder how he pronounces the word "leg"?

I'm guessing this is why I bounce off of people as a charger in L4D2. Stupid hit detection

Yet another reason why PC gaming is mo' better: dedicated servers.

As long as the current state of client side technology and the inadequate home connection picture stays the same, I will never buy a multiplayer first person shooter that doesn't use dedicated servers. Never. Additionally, I will do my best to educate others why they shouldn't as well. The more titles like this succeed the larger the chance that publishers will force crappy networking implementations like this.

Let's be clear too; there are poor implementations with dedicated servers, but this is different. This is bad BY DESIGN.(architecture) Bad by implementation *can* be fixed, bad by design, no.

I should probably toss out (despite the fact I do not play this game) it was mentioned by a couple of reddit users when this was shown over there that his comparison is flawed because he is relying on replay theater to demonstrate the lag. The replay mode is inaccurate compared to actual gameplay due to keyframes probably being out of sync and the problems demonstrated may have not actually appeared as shown.

Still, this a good argument towards dedicated servers. In a P2P system the host has 0ms lag when someone else might have 150ms, and can make the difference between derp and killing someone.

^Actually, theater mode, as far as I've heard, records the match entirely from the host's perspective, as he explains in the video.

>> ^probie:

I used to play Quake 2 with tremendous amounts of "leg", and I still placed #1 in most matches. You improvise, adapt and overcome.
Or you could just whinge about it.


Hey man, there's a difference between saying "there is a legit problem with how this is being done and it's ruining the functionality of the game" and "WHAT THE FUCK FUCKING BULLSHIT LAG OH MY GOD LAG FUCKING SHITTY HOST"

Notice that the second one is whining (I'd go so far as to say "bitching," even), but the first one is not.

Edit: why is this text here all above the quote box? Only the first sentence should be.

>> ^Truckchase:

As long as the current state of client side technology and the inadequate home connection picture stays the same, I will never buy a multiplayer first person shooter that doesn't use dedicated servers.

Dedicated servers still have the same problem.

Someone playing as a "host" is basically a client with a ~0ms latency. Developers can add code to compensate for lag, but the timing on the client side is never the same as what the server sees.

*geek

Heh, I remember dial-up!

Adding video to channels (Geek) - requested by ant.

1 more thing, a current trend in network gear.... is to increase buffer size. This actually increases LAG!!!.
The internet people don't care about PING times, as they buy hardware with huge buffers!