internet latency & effects on hit registration

[nick4567]

but why does it not show up as loss then or ping fluctuations to 400 ms bc i can clearly feel the difference in my game when i get better hit reg but my ping doesnt change

[open]

A test within the games protocol to the games server WILL show delay or packet loss. hence why I specified the distniction between 3rd party tools in my post right before the wall of text that apperently missed those few words in my short post. reading comperhension is not the best...


The point is that the packets are getting delayed or lost. Some games can run tests to reveal these statistics and measurements within. Not all are so lucky. Overwatch used to show an averaged ping but they combined that measurement with an engine performance measurement. Essentially your ping plus the client side delay get added together to show up as latency. There is also a measurement of rtt or round trip time. Together these can be used to get a good sense of lag that would be more accurate than running pings in cmd to another server. I have played games in the past that would actually track and parse out their own delay and packet loss internally. That is ideal but many dont have that feature.

The thing here is that I have had so many isps, and tunnels / vpns in my life and I have never experienced a distinction between say pinging a few random web servers and performance in game. When it was crap in game it was crap all around. Ive lived in 19 locations and had more isps than that. not even counting places where i visitied worked or voluenteered and used and tested internet connections. I think what you are seeing is what you describe but at the same time, based on my 30+ years of experience, would STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to use traditional means to get DETAILED MEASUREMENTS of your network performance. It's very easy to run 100 pings to a server and say well that looks fine. Run thousands to multiple servers at different times. First eliminate the most likely cause THEN move on to the obscure.

[nick4567]

because of the way udp packets work i dont think it would show anything wrong i dont really think theres a way to test this

[open]

because of the way udp packets work i dont think it would show anything wrong i dont really think theres a way to test this

it can be within the packet data and client software. or the first google search of "udp ping" offers a tool. tools are built into other software as well

[mello]

so yeah. everything you listed is a form of delay or loss. congratulations on agreeing with me

You still missed the point. It has nothing to do with what is being measured and reported by the default system tools/the game itself in the terms of ping and packet loss. Obviously, something is happening to the packets, delay, loss or both, it is just not being reflected properly by the standard measuring tools. My speculation is, packets are being delayed and delivered late and out of order, which creates all the problems that people are experiencing. In terms of packet loss, there are no missing sounds, just a feeling of firing an empty bullets at the enemies. Typical packet loss feels and manifests itself differently, and is also being properly measured and reported by the default system tools/the game itself when it actually occurs. And this is precisely why this whole thing creates the problem i described, people that are affected by this look at everything else but at their own internet connection as a potential culprit.

Also, even if someone could do a detailed measurments of the network performance, with some 3rd party tools for example as you suggested, it is still a waste of time, because this problem simply can't be fixed on the clients side. It all comes from and is created within the ISP's network.

[open]

And you missed when i distinguished between 3rd party tools in my statement a while ago. It was only like 2 sentences in that post. Please read and comprehend.

Also you say there is no point to measuring now. The point of measuring is to KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

But I guess your advice is just to assume something. That I have never witnessed over 30+ isps in 6 states. And change isp without confirming that even though you could likely measure it in 30 mins or less depending.

So yeah not very good advice and you wanting to repeatedly post a wall of text over a distinction that was made but you missed a page ago, really doesn't help anyone.

Please give more useful advice. Figure out and confirm the problem then act.

[Chief Blur Buster]

(This reply not addressed to anyone in particular)

The Blur Busters word is: Internet latency definitely does add to the Pandora's Box of temporal problems of gaming -- latency, stutter, consistency, etc. The world has a universe of great resources on this, including Battle(non)Sense, but no easy "internet lag holy grail solution" exists.

Different people have different approaches. In some countries, it takes less than 30 seconds to order a new ISP -- the competitive systems are very good. No "8 hour waits for the cable company that will sometimes never arrive". It depends on where you live. If you have money, sometimes it's faster to order multiple different ISPs and test all of them. What is an ordeal for person #1 may be a quicker work for person #2.

The decision on how to troubleshot network problems, is a tough one.
(A) analytically; measuring scientifically, in a very heavily Battle(non)sense manner; or
(B) trial-and-error; if you prefer to spend more time or more money -- software, hardware or service.

Software level (reinstalling, tweaking), whether done self or paying others
Hardware level (buying new parts, accessories, or even a whole new computer)
Service level (buying new ISP, gaming VPN, etc)

At the extreme level, people who can afford it, will pay a experienced gaming equipment supplier to do a whole (B) solution in a "one-try-all-at-once" trail-and-error. In other words -- a whole, expensive pre-optimized gaming system -- and if they can afford it, may be willing to do it twice or even three times to figure out which gaming rig performs best. Big time savings but at a big spend... A brute forced rapid trial-and-error.

Now, if you have lots of time but not much money, then it boils down to your skillset in many ways -- combining a moderate amount of analytically troubleshoot (A) with a moderate amount of trial-and-error (B) on free stuff such as tweaking/software/etc. That's where a bigger debate of efficiency often occur, but respect is still warranted -- your computer skills may affect how you spend your time on the A-vs-B balance.

Many of us do a mix in between (A) and (B) at a balanced ratio that is appropriate to our situation. Some will do mainly veer (A) and others will mainly veer (B). Sometimes one or the other is easier at your living location in your particular part of the world, with your particular skillset. The ratio of (A) versus (B) is often influenced by your skillset, your time, your money. Sometimes we make mistakes and chase a red herring down the wrong path, where an approach helped someone but did not help the other.

I have seen situations where (A) saved lots of time, AND I have also indeed seen situations where (B) saved lots of time, too.

Equally so, I've also seen lots of lost time both ways, even if in good intentions. And often multiple ways to potentially fix a problem.
What was a free fix for someone (but took 100 hours to figure out) might have cost thousands of dollars for another person (but took only an hour or two). And sometimes it's impossible (game limitation) that will create fruitless effort in either the (A) and/or (B) route.

Either way, I respect both approaches. Everyone should too. Helpful timesaving advice is welcome, but none of that "inferiour than thou" ego -- nor "that's a ridiculous approach" putting-down stuff, please. Offer a better approach, but also remember that not everyone may have the skill/time/patience and may prefer to spend money on hardware/service instead that makes (B) easier and faster. So try to think outside the box and respect the different approaches people have to troubleshoot a problem.

Discuss and debate away! Keep it crispy, not supernova-hot...

[open]

Edit: you know what I'm a little frustrated by this thread. You are right chief there are multiple ways and it doesn't help to get hot and I'm sorry.

I still would personally advocate to do some testing. It seems like the OP is in a situation where it is at least somewhat involved to hop isps. And you may learn something. You can get some udp protocol testing skills and be able to use that knowledge for the rest of your life which may be useful to a latency concerned gamer.

As well I would advocate that it is still useful to classify the issues as being latency or loss related. Even if they are though UDP saying they are not would only prevent a high level of understanding.

I'm sorry I've given my 2 cents and I'm taking a break from this thread for now.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Disclaimer:

(This reply not addressed to anyone in particular)

Many lurkers and readers do read these threads. Sometimes my replies are intended for readers of the thread rather than the original posters.

Oftentimes, I've seen many outside parties cite/quote Blur Busters threads at other forums or reddit. Sometimes there comes a point where I just simply have to chime in (Because I saw misinformation on reddit from someone citing a Blur Busters thread). So sometimes while my replies sometimes add noise inside a thread, they can reduce misinformation noise outside the thread.

Not everything has measuring tools easily developed/available.

Just like for displays, there were often no measuring tools available for specific kinds of artifacts. Even for esports we need application developers to create new measuring apps that are available for download. Oftentimes I see some very complex apps for display testing that costs tens of thousands of dollars with a specialized piece of equipment such as "high speed colorimeter camera" or a "motorized MPRT measurement camera" --

But laypeople can't just download a tool (or use an existing diagnostic already installed in OS or website) to figure out that a display problem is being caused by something that these measurement devices can measure. Same for networking too as well.

There are lots of networking problems that definitely exists that don't have easy measuring tools available for them. One example is Cisco has a lot of high end expensive ISP network analysis stuff that actually measures some really interesting data -- since the backbone people need these expensive tools to properly measure their big iron. A lot of that data doesn't ever get seen by you nor me, unfortunately. No user-downloadable EXE can tell you. Unfortunately I do not know if this is the case here or not, but I definitely keep an open mind (Blur Busters policy). The fact is, sometimes it's not easy to measure without a big spend...

Likewise, NVIDIA and some other manufacturers have created apps that can measure stuff that the bloggers haven't yet. (I do bring out display testing inventions that makes it possible for testing at much lower budgets than was possible ten years ago). But not everything is cheaply/easily measurable.

So many things come out of left field for displays. And for networks too.

Even a weird situation of slightly varying the packet size or temporal spacing between the packets, unexpectedly triggers unmeasured latency. All that innovation in traffic shaping, great-firewall-style-analysis and security scanning (random latencies for suspicious packets) used in many countries, auto-throttling algorithms (like LTE carriers use for congested nodes), and automatic packet reprioritizations (unintentional or intentional; ala distortions to network neutrality), creates all kinds of new undiscovered latency issues in recent months and years that our tools don't always cover.

It's becoming worse and worse, even if average latencies are falling -- as the latency noisefloor falls lower, the smaller latency noise is appearing that we formerly didn't care to measure. 16ms VSYNC ON console refresh cycle makes 1ms ping jitter invisible, but 4ms 240Hz VSYNC OFF makes 1ms-worsenings of ping jitter sufficiently visible enough with certain games that don't have algorithms good enough to filter that out. Certain things are continually creating unexpected secret ping jitter in games that don't show in your measuring tool. Etc. Etc. Etc. Specific game creating network pattern, or the combinations that occur (e.g. gaming+streaming occuring simultaneously) that, even with a perfect gaming router, is triggering something deep in the network missed by a common measuring tool. That ISPs have done has created some unexpected side effects that rarely show up. Measuring tool A catches something that measuring tool B doesn't. Likewise, the gaming stuff can interact with complex network algorithms that keeps getting continually slapped hand-over-fist onto the Internet. Throw in the IPV6 soup and and it's becoming horrendously complex for measuring-tool-makers.

The existence of 240Hz revealing latency flaws and motion flaws more visibly than 60Hz, even where the measuring tooldesigners haven't considered -- even 1ms moves a tearline down 25% screenheight at 240Hz -- and 1ms frametime delay creates 1 pixelwidth of stutter per 1000 pixels/sec motion. For the most sensitive individuals, even 1ms network delays aren't always fully successfully filtered out in the soup of algorithms that games have, and some are much more sensitive to tiny problems than others. The game is much to blame, but as the noisefloor falls everywhere (lower lag, higher Hz, faster GPU, etc), the noisefloor of other network latency problems starts to appear that few or nobody is currently bothering to measure. Many are display pros or network pros but few are simultaneously display-pros-AND-network-pros.

There are many unmeasured interactions. In the very simplistic example -- an average may be steady but a median may change -- or vice versa -- and create a whole different lagfeel that is unmeasured. And even an average/median may stay mostly unchanged but the volatility pattern changed (different latency inconsistency feel) and not all network lag tools may make this show up like a christmas tree until it's properly scatterplotted in a brand new chart visualization a different tool did not have. Yet one-or-the-other may be creating more problem for lag artifacts for a specific individual missed in measurements. And complex interactions with a video game's lag compensation algorithm can create better/worse outcomes for a specific volatility-pattern graph than a different game.

And on the measuring front, users may hate doing certain things much like they hate English class or might hate Math class at school. It's a bit frustrating when someone doesn't want to troubleshoot/measure in the same way we do, or that our point is being missed.

The point is that the network-lag is horrendously complex underneath the surface, far moreso than every poster here thinks. It's no wonder some of us don't even bother touching specific Pandora's Boxes! The software running in carrier routers is orders of magnitude more more complex than it used to be 20 years ago, creating new complex latency patterns that are harder and harder to measure sometimes. Just as we think something is a solved problem, extra complications layer in, and we're back to square one. Now, even what I say, is probably not what is happening, but the point is: It's not always fun measuring or trying to understand/interpret measuring processes, and it's complex enough to easily be misunderstood, even if it is something far simpler than the Pandora's Box underneath the network-lag surface.

Nontheless, we keep an open mind on hard-to-measure stuff.

It is not my intention to derail discussion, so apologies -- my generally-on-topic reply is also addressed to lurkers/readers of this thread too who haven't posted anything. This is often my Blur Busters Forum approach when I see potentially contentious topics.

(Carry on, feel free to pretend I didn't reply to this thread.)

Cheers.

[nick4567]

Disclaimer:

(This reply not addressed to anyone in particular)

Many lurkers and readers do read these threads. Sometimes my replies are intended for readers of the thread rather than the original posters.

Oftentimes, I've seen many outside parties cite/quote Blur Busters threads at other forums or reddit. Sometimes there comes a point where I just simply have to chime in (Because I saw misinformation on reddit from someone citing a Blur Busters thread). So sometimes while my replies sometimes add noise inside a thread, they can reduce noise outside the thread.

Not everything has measuring tools easily developed/available.

Just like for displays, there were often no measuring tools available for specific kinds of artifacts. Even for esports we need application developers to create new measuring apps that are available for download. Oftentimes I see some very complex apps for display testing that costs tens of thousands of dollars with a specialized piece of equipment such as "high speed colorimeter camera" or a "motorized MPRT measurement camera" --

But laypeople can't just download a tool (or use an existing diagnostic already installed in OS or website) to figure out that a display problem is being caused by something that these measurement devices can measure. Same for networking too as well.

There are lots of networking problems that definitely exists that don't have easy measuring tools available for them. One example is Cisco has a lot of high end expensive ISP network analysis stuff that actually measures some really interesting data -- since the backbone people need these expensive tools to properly measure their big iron. A lot of that data doesn't ever get seen by you nor me, unfortunately. No user-downloadable EXE can tell you. Unfortunately I do not know if this is the case here or not, but I definitely keep an open mind (Blur Busters policy). The fact is, sometimes it's not easy to measure without a big spend...

Likewise, NVIDIA and some other manufacturers have created apps that can measure stuff that the bloggers haven't yet. (I do bring out display testing inventions that makes it possible for testing at much lower budgets than was possible ten years ago). But not everything is cheaply/easily measurable.

So many things come out of left field for displays. And for networks too.

Even a weird situation of slightly varying the packet size or temporal spacing between the packets, unexpectedly triggers unmeasured latency. All that innovation in traffic shaping, great-firewall-style-analysis and security scanning (random latencies for suspicious packets) used in many countries, auto-throttling algorithms (like LTE carriers use for congested nodes), and automatic packet reprioritizations (unintentional or intentional; ala distortions to network neutrality), creates all kinds of new undiscovered latency issues in recent months and years that our tools don't always cover.

It's becoming worse and worse, even if average latencies are falling -- as the latency noisefloor falls lower, the smaller latency noise is appearing that we formerly didn't care to measure. 16ms VSYNC ON console refresh cycle makes 1ms ping jitter invisible, but 4ms 240Hz VSYNC OFF makes 1ms-worsenings of ping jitter sufficiently visible enough with certain games that don't have algorithms good enough to filter that out. Certain things are continually creating unexpected secret ping jitter in games that don't show in your measuring tool. Etc. Etc. Etc. Specific game creating network pattern, or the combinations that occur (e.g. gaming+streaming occuring simultaneously) that, even with a perfect gaming router, is triggering something deep in the network missed by a common measuring tool. That ISPs have done has created some unexpected side effects that rarely show up. Measuring tool A catches something that measuring tool B doesn't. Likewise, the gaming stuff can interact with complex network algorithms that keeps getting continually slapped hand-over-fist onto the Internet. Throw in the IPV6 soup and and it's becoming horrendously complex for measuring-tool-makers.

The existence of 240Hz revealing latency flaws and motion flaws more visibly than 60Hz, even where the measuring tooldesigners haven't considered -- even 1ms moves a tearline down 25% screenheight at 240Hz -- and 1ms frametime delay creates 1 pixelwidth of stutter per 1000 pixels/sec motion. For the most sensitive individuals, even 1ms network delays aren't always fully successfully filtered out in the soup of algorithms that games have, and some are much more sensitive to tiny problems than others. The game is much to blame, but as the noisefloor falls everywhere (lower lag, higher Hz, faster GPU, etc), the noisefloor of other network latency problems starts to appear that few or nobody is currently bothering to measure. Many are display pros or network pros but few are simultaneously display-pros-AND-network-pros.

There are many unmeasured interactions. In the very simplistic example -- an average may be steady but a median may change -- or vice versa -- and create a whole different lagfeel that is unmeasured. And even an average/median may stay mostly unchanged but the volatility pattern changed (different latency inconsistency feel) and not all network lag tools may make this show up like a christmas tree until it's properly scatterplotted in a brand new chart visualization a different tool did not have. Yet one-or-the-other may be creating more problem for lag artifacts for a specific individual missed in measurements. And complex interactions with a video game's lag compensation algorithm can create better/worse outcomes for a specific volatility-pattern graph than a different game.

And on the measuring front, users may hate doing certain things much like they hate English class or might hate Math class at school. It's a bit frustrating when someone doesn't want to troubleshoot/measure in the same way we do, or that our point is being missed.

The point is that the network-lag is horrendously complex underneath the surface, far moreso than every poster here thinks. It's no wonder some of us don't even bother touching specific Pandora's Boxes! The software running in carrier routers is orders of magnitude more more complex than it used to be 20 years ago, creating new complex latency patterns that are harder and harder to measure sometimes. Just as we think something is a solved problem, extra complications layer in, and we're back to square one. Now, even what I say, is probably not what is happening, but the point is: It's not always fun measuring or trying to understand/interpret measuring processes, and it's complex enough to easily be misunderstood, even if it is something far simpler than the Pandora's Box underneath the network-lag surface.

Nontheless, we keep an open mind on hard-to-measure stuff.

It is not my intention to derail discussion, so apologies -- my generally-on-topic reply is also addressed to lurkers/readers of this thread too who haven't posted anything. This is often my Blur Busters Forum approach when I see potentially contentious topics.

(Carry on, feel free to pretend I didn't reply to this thread.)

Cheers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensiv ... ad_hitreg/ the issue is 100 percent internet related because this guy said he moved and some days felt really bad and some days felt normal mello is probably more right here but i was more so wondering how the isp can change its infrastructure and wether or not this problem can be addressed by more people and maybe be presented to someone like battlenonsense who may have the means of testing this because no setting can dramatically increase my skill level like it did playing at my friends house and ive already tried every possible tweak u can think of before even bought a new pc trying to fix this in the end it changed nothing ive tried different isps already aswell if the exact cause of this issue can be proven then more solutions can start to arise and who knows now that there is no net neutrality in the united states maybe a possibility of fast path connection or gaming intended connections