Why am I always die before I see the enemy? INPUT LAG :(

[stefanbk]

Occasionally a VPN will bypass broken peering, but it depends on the very specific situations of the ISP, the peering, and the VPN. For example, if 4 of 5 backbones have crappy peering, and the VPN uses one of the good backbones, you'll potentially be able to bypass the bad peering.

The more broken the peering, the harder it is for a VPN to bypass.

But it's still worth a few dice roll attempts of trying out VPN providers. Sometimes unfixable, sometimes partially fixable. It might only improve things a few %.

the backbone of this specific provider is complety broken. I tried almost every vpn and nothing helped.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Occasionally a VPN will bypass broken peering, but it depends on the very specific situations of the ISP, the peering, and the VPN. For example, if 4 of 5 backbones have crappy peering, and the VPN uses one of the good backbones, you'll potentially be able to bypass the bad peering.

The more broken the peering, the harder it is for a VPN to bypass.

But it's still worth a few dice roll attempts of trying out VPN providers. Sometimes unfixable, sometimes partially fixable. It might only improve things a few %.

the backbone of this specific provider is complety broken. I tried almost every vpn and nothing helped.

Damn! Vodafone Cable completely unfixable by VPN? Even the business Vodafone? Ugh.

<Cue the crushing Marvin-The-Miserable-Robot Dissapointment here>

This might be a situation where a 25 Mbps VDSL connection will actually perform better than a gigabit cable connection. It definitely happens; I've seen an unloaded 25 Mbps (with good peering/backbones) outperform gigabit (with crappy connectivity). One could assign Vodafone cable to the rest of the household, and a VDSL connection for the gaming. Most games run happily on a great 25 Mbps VDSL as long as nobody else is consuming bandwidth on it. The two connection technique is recommended if you're stuck using a slow DSL or VDSL connection as a latency fix. The moral of the story is that if your 2nd choice is less than one-tenth the speed of your current connection, don't dismiss it -- its latency characteristics may actually end up being superior for esports! (When you're stuck).

Another technique: If you're lucky enough to be a TPIA area (Third Party Internet Access) such as Teksavvy piggybacking on Cogeco/Rogers cable infrastructure, you could try switching your cable to that too, to see if you get better peering.

I am lucky to live in a location where I have competitive gigabit (two gigabit ISPs available to me), and I hope the OP has competitive options. Pun intended on competitive.

[canx66]

Occasionally a VPN will bypass broken peering, but it depends on the very specific situations of the ISP, the peering, and the VPN. For example, if 4 of 5 backbones have crappy peering, and the VPN uses one of the good backbones, you'll potentially be able to bypass the bad peering.

The more broken the peering, the harder it is for a VPN to bypass.

But it's still worth a few dice roll attempts of trying out VPN providers. Sometimes unfixable, sometimes partially fixable. It might only improve things a few %.

the backbone of this specific provider is complety broken. I tried almost every vpn and nothing helped.

Damn! Vodafone Cable completely unfixable by VPN? Even the business Vodafone? Ugh.

<Cue the crushing Marvin-The-Miserable-Robot Dissapointment here>

This might be a situation where a 25 Mbps VDSL connection will actually perform better than a gigabit cable connection. It definitely happens; I've seen an unloaded 25 Mbps (with good peering/backbones) outperform gigabit (with crappy connectivity). One could assign Vodafone cable to the rest of the household, and a VDSL connection for the gaming. Most games run happily on a great 25 Mbps VDSL as long as nobody else is consuming bandwidth on it. The two connection technique is recommended if you're stuck using a slow DSL or VDSL connection as a latency fix. The moral of the story is that if your 2nd choice is less than one-tenth the speed of your current connection, don't dismiss it -- its latency characteristics may actually end up being superior for esports! (When you're stuck).

Another technique: If you're lucky enough to be a TPIA area (Third Party Internet Access) such as Teksavvy piggybacking on Cogeco/Rogers cable infrastructure, you could try switching your cable to that too, to see if you get better peering.

I am lucky to live in a location where I have competitive gigabit (two gigabit ISPs available to me), and I hope the OP has competitive options. Pun intended on competitive.

Thats exactly what I plan to do. I will get a VDSL line 100down/40up for 20€ a month, which is really really cheap.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Be careful to check the bonding, the 100 Mbps VDSL options are often bonded (multi link PPP), which creates a latency risk. It might be perfectly fine, mind you, but there are risks.

If this is the case, get the 50 Mbps option instead (single link PPP).

[dervu]

Remember that playing passive with high ping in any online FPS game will often end like getting prefired. If lower pinger will peek you he will probably have more time to react than you. If you will peek with high ping it can be reversed. That is why many people play aggresively.
I remember playing CS 1.5 on LAN and noone could touch me. Good old times.

Now playing with 10 ping and it is impossible to kill 90 pingers when they are aggressive and are any decent in game while I am holding angle.
Playing on 40 ping against 200 pinger in a game with client side detection? Impossible when he is aggressive, except when I go in flow state and do 130ms shot having perfect crosshair placement and being aggressive too.

[canx66]

Iam playing Valorant recently. And thats 100% true. Especially in Valorant. Iam performing better when I have a ping from 30-40. Thats not a joke, even hitteg is better. On 20-22 Ping I always get prefired around the courner. Hits dont register on and on. Especially if the enemy has higher ping than me. The only way to kill in this scenario is really, like you said inhuman reaction and perfect crosshair placement, maybe pre aiming. Even then especially on Valorant the hit reg is broken and the game thinks its bodyshot, even when literally on his head. Because its client sided. But thats another topic.

[Nawafwabs]

I was having similar problem until i fix high emi in house

Now i play with 100ms and i beat people with 12 ping so easy

[Palacko]

I was having similar problem until i fix high emi in house

Now i play with 100ms and i beat people with 12 ping so easy

Hey Bro, what was your steps to fix it?
Do you use your old PC again? I have the same issue but also if I take my pc to another home its same shit.
I think it got damaged or something -.-

I bought a emi tester now to test my home.

[davidoo]

don't change the CPU! that ain't the problem.

I went from a 2700x to a 10700k... there is no difference in input lag. It wont solve your problem.

Try changing the csgo networking settings and interpolation to cl_interp_ratio 1 cl_interp 0 and see if it helps.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Remember that playing passive with high ping in any online FPS game will often end like getting prefired. If lower pinger will peek you he will probably have more time to react than you. If you will peek with high ping it can be reversed. That is why many people play aggresively.
I remember playing CS 1.5 on LAN and noone could touch me. Good old times.

Now playing with 10 ping and it is impossible to kill 90 pingers when they are aggressive and are any decent in game while I am holding angle.
Playing on 40 ping against 200 pinger in a game with client side detection? Impossible when he is aggressive, except when I go in flow state and do 130ms shot having perfect crosshair placement and being aggressive too.

This is a game-specific behaviour.

Currently, I don't play Valorant -- however, IIRC from what I think I heard, Valorant is more aggressive in handicapping ultralow-lag connections than CS:GO is. I may be wrong, but that might explain things partially --

Whether it's a fair playing-fiend-balancing algorithm, I cannot say, but the fact is that different latencies are handicapped differently to try to level the playing field. Metaphorically, the levelness / un-levelness of the playing field will vary from game to game -- unfortunately.

Some games have lag-compesnation algorithms that has an effect of penalizing LAN-quality connections (FTTH) when matched against online gamers. Not all games punishes fast connections (handicaps for fast connections) but if this happens, connecting to farther-away servers (add more lag) can sometimes help. In a perfect world, the latency handicap effect equalizes the playing field for all players (to a certain point), but it is extremely difficult to make it fair, given the multilple subtle elements of latency (bufferbloat behaviours, latency jitter behaviours, etc).

Testing is very sparse on latency emulators (e.g. Linktropy Mini, etc) or modified firmwares (DD-WRT that adds latency) is extremely skimpy at the moment, but I suspect theoretically can allow an FTTH user to optimize to a network latency (near-zero jitter but higher latency such as 30ms instead of 10ms) to play more balanced with others. Remarkably adding lag can improve competitive playability because of the lowlag-handicapping algorithms.

There are artificial network latency simulators (in a hardware device such as a Linktropy or WanRaptor or software package such as WANem or "WAN Latency Emulator"). Also, with the right software, a Linux box can also be set up as a network switch that intentionally adds latency, put between your game computer and your Internet connection. In theory, for an FTTH user, an ultralow-jitter precise-latency connection (i.e. a target such as 32ms +/- 1ms) might hit a theoretical sweet spot with certain online games. Such things can handicap lag in one or both directions, to simulate a longer wire. I have no idea if all this is construed as "cheating" to get around a low-lag handicapper algorithm in some online competitive games, so do your homework if you decide to experiment with adding artifical network latency.

Intentionally adding network lag is usually counterintuitive stuff, due to the mantra of "lower lag, lower lag!" but certain games does seem to arbitrarily over-handicap low network lag. Unfortuantely network-lag playing-field-levelling algorithms is a pretty complex topic that sometimes fails to be fair to all connections of all network latency behaviours.

You can continue to keep your subsystem lag very low (high performing computer/display), as the game can't lag-handicap for display lag (software can never know what the display lag is).

But network lag is something self-measurable by games themselves, and they do sometimes handicap ultrafast connections especially when other players are on slower connections. And this varies a lot from game to game. While Blur Busters doesn't specialize in network latency, Battle(non)sense YouTube covers all of this sheninigians, and it's interesting stuff.

This may or may not be a factor in the OP stuff, but it is a consideration to think about.