Even modern GPUs, buffering up to 3 frames ahead, will contribute to this. That 16ms has suddenly become 50 (or is it 66?) Worse, if you're not running at a smooth 60fps (say you're jittering around between 59 and 61) the jitter in your input will now be out of sync with what's displayed on-screen, so the game will seem to run incredibly jerky.

I'm running at 120 FPS and at 120 htz with verticle sync enabled. That is not the issue. My frames never drop below 120 .

120fps is 8.333ms per frame. With 3 frames buffered and one extra for server/client out of step you're looking at 66ms latency to begin with, even in SP games.

Sounds like an excuse bethesda would come up with. This doesn't account for the lag issues. If pings are correct on a Texas server I should have around 100 to 120 ping. Not 300+ and depending how bad things get its been over 700. As Stahl said something is very wrong with the game.

It's not an excuse, it's a measurement.

But I'm not denying it, just pointing out that ping times on their own are not the full story when it comes to latency, as well as that people have a certain built-in tolerance for latency up to a certain level (beyond which that tolerance seems to fall off a cliff).

Do you have the game on PC? I'd love to show you just how bad it is. If you vs me for a couple games in tourney we can put this to rest. Nothing like testing out that measurement in real world scenarios .

I agree though that ping isn't always the entire story but there is something that is causing these ping issues, that's for sure. I have no doubt this is due to P2P and maybe due to having no options to change settings in the console (in comparison to doom3). Many things are missing including changing the maxclienterate, server rate, etc.

Le sigh.

I'm not denying that it's bad. What part of that is not getting through?

Yes, I have it on PC but my own net connection is incredibly high latency - 300ms minimum even to dedicated servers.

The lag in Doom3 multiplayer i experienced shouldn't be measured in milliseconds but seconds.
Pulling the trigger and firing the shot sometimes took longer than a second, if it worked at all.

And this decrease in performance from one game to the next with the same people playing...

I can back this up i was there. And sometimes my machinegun would skip animations when i got around other players. so the player detection may be a logical guess. Also some maps where less laggy then the previous game. All in all there are some netcode problems here.

People seem to forget that the original 2004 version also had pretty laggy multiplayer, the was a reason they only allowed a max 4-8 people on at once

Even back then it was an after thought just like it is now, this was and still is a game that was made for single player. If you want good multiplayer, there are better multiplayer oriented titles

My thoughts exactly. Doom 3 is a single player game first and multiplayer is an afterthought. I want the single player issues fixed as thats the main attraction.

The fact of the matter is they should not have made multi player if it was just an after thought. That is a horrible excuse and ID is known for making competitive FPS games (especially multi player). Doom3 original technically is still better at this point due to the lag issues. But its net coding is horrible as you said. Plus being limited to 60 FPS and 60 htz is fail (it also has its own lag issues). Making an excuse for the horrible game play is pathetic. If they didn't intend on having multi they should not have included it period. Especially the second time around. Can you really make an excuse for them the second time around? That is a big slap in the face to consumers. Note: I did not buy the game for single player. I could give a rats ass about single player. It is not that challenging. Versing seasoned players in tourney is a lot more challenging than playing on nightmare... I feel the same way about quake III.

Regarding the player limits I agree. When there is more than 4 players the lag does get worse. Although the lag is there regardless of how many players are on the server. In the older game with low ping and a good dedicated server you can have really good games. But you can still have some issues due to the 60 FPS limit and 60 htz. If they address the current lag issues the game will be flawless in multi player, I can already see that by the hit detection and overall smoothness of the game (especially with 0 ping).

Lastly, I much prefer doom3 to even the quake series. That is why I was extremely hopeful they would have fixed the issues with the old game. I can get into the engine of this game. It's natural for me and I very much enjoy playing against skilled players. In quake I have to be in the mood to really do good. The game just doesn't engage me as much. Doom3 is much more heartless in competitive matches. Plus the feel is very different from quake. Not the same games but similar concepts.

There are no dedicated servers. A dedicated server would be a seperate PC running the server instead of using the actual players as the host. It is purely peer to peer (thus one contributing reason to the lag issues). If you make your own server you should have 0 ping and no lag issues (unless it's your hardware or internet). But when joining other peoples home servers you will have high ping. If you'd still like to vs I'd love to lol. I can manage to do decently with 300+ ping but I gotta work that much harder. My name on steam is .9gW rip

All really good an all, but whens the patch coming out?

Exactly, I feel like I wasted $40.

Really? You should have mentioned that before? #stuck[censored]ingrecord

You really need to go back and re-read all of your posts on this.

There's a common theme running through them, and it goes like this: YOU don't get what YOU want straight away so you kick up a squealy fit over it.

Really. There's just such a sense of self-entitlement there that it's unreal.

The patch will be released when it's ready, and no amount of kicking up noise on forums will bring that date any closer.

It's possible even id are finding bugs that are yet to be mentioned, and are fixing them up.

It's also important to note that they might have just a couple guys trying to tackle the patch, with the others focusing on Doom4, and maybe a small handful on RageDLC (unless it's been cancelled). That being the case, it makes sense it's taking quite some time.

On the other hand it was noted to be in QA, which the Rage mod tools were said to be in back in May or thereabouts. Maybe they've just got a very very long QA process...

Either way, stamping one's feet and yelling about it on a forum isn't going to make it happen any sooner.

I was unaware of that.

Yes, apparently their QA takes a very long time... very long. That being the case, the release better be good. Though with most bugs being small things, I'm sure it will be good indeed. The only thing I could see being more difficult is multiplayer code, but I wouldn't be suprised if they left that how it is.

https://twitter.com/idBrianHarris - 31st October


That's still only 2 weeks though; the Q2 3.12 patch took 2 weeks testing too - http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_1998.html#d19980222

It's also the case that BFG doesn't appear to have any crashers in it; no AMD hardware shenanigans, so perhaps that can be read as an indication that a patch doesn't need to be rushed out, so they can take a bit more time over it.

Optimistic, I know, but all the same: on balance a higher-quality patch later seems preferable to a rushed half-assed job. So long as it's not too much later.

I remember times when patches got released months or years after the game's original street date.
And those were the times when patches didn't need to be certified by console manufacturers...

People might not know this, but how do you think console games were patched before consoles could be connected to the internet. Trick question! they werent!

Not to say they werent patched at all, they were but the only way to get these versions were to buy the game all over again. Games had alot less bugs back then too, all of them were minor and none of them were game breaking. Times have changed so much now, game developers would never be able to get away with the crap they do these days back then.

Yea nowadays, they are a lot more lazy and let more game breaking glitches slip by. Sure games last gen still occasionally had game breaking glitches, but nowhere near the consistency they do now. Back then they actually tried to make damn well sure the glitches were ironed out because they only had one shot to press the disc.

What is this "disc" thing you speak of I was talking about cartridge based games