RTCW - Broken Netplay, that makes 3 for 3 for shitty PC-port

zurich

Kendoka
Veteran
Alright.. that's three for three, FPS's on XBL that have had suckass lag. First was the former champion, UC, then Ghost Recon, and now RTCW. I tried for an hour to find a server (even with an 'excellent' connection) that could handle over 4 or 5 people - no luck. Finally I hosted, left it open for an hour, and got 8 people going, and it was a BLAST. But seriously? WTF is with the jackass lag on these games?

My first suspicion is that the XCPU just can't handle serving and playing at once, as the dropped frames, packet loss, and general wierdness are NOT your typical 'lag'. That said, what is MS going to do to fix this? It'd be nice if they could run a server farm of sorts, but that seems unlikely (P2P is that much cheaper). They could release stand alone server clients for the PC, but that'll never happen.

I have a sweet 3 meg down, 1 meg up ADSL line, so bandwidth is not the problem. Player movement was a little jerky for me (as host), but I have no idea how bad it was for the actual clients.. either way, I'm not impressed!

Non-FPS games, or should I say, non-PC games haven't had any of these problems. MotoGP runs like a charm with 16 people, MechAssault flew with 8.. so far its just been the PC ports that have sucked ass online (UC/GR/RTCW).

What gives?

Either way, I'm not very happy with this. I guess I should say, that once I had my game up and running, it was a BLAST to play. Words cannot describe the coolness that is seemless voice comm in a team based game like RTCW.. but seriously, talk about the barrier to entry (to play) heh.

edit: I should also add that the problem was almost as bad on 'dedicated' servers as well.

So much for 'broadband makes everything easier' heh.
 
Append, after 4-5 hours of playing... the multiplayer is FUN AS HELL, but only if you're the host :) I had 8 people on my server, and no one was complaining.. so I guess there's just too many guys out there hosting who thinks their l33t cable is good enough to act as a server, dedicated or not. Tomorrow I might try 10 people (including myself).. I've got 12 up running right now dedicated.

Either way, my point stands about MS being in dire dire dire need of a server farm for their FPSs.
 
well no ****, your paying money for a peer to peer service.. basically, your playing the exact same way PC people do, but without the memory to handle more than 8 people.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
well no ****, your paying money for a peer to peer service.. basically, your playing the exact same way PC people do, but without the memory to handle more than 8 people.

Nobody plays RTCW peer-to-peer on PC. At least not anyone being just a tad competitive.

Cheers
Gubbi
 
Zurich: You've played RTCW online on the PC, right?

This is one reason why I think that the PC is going to be better than consoles online for a while longer..

So far, pretty much any multi-platform game that you can play online is better on the PC. I mean, c'mon.. 4-on-4 RTCW on Xbox with frequent lag? I play RTCW all the time on the PC and the games are 16-on-16 typically! This is with little to no lag on broadband, mind you.. and it's easy as hell to find good servers.

Online works on consoles right now, but some think that it approaches the PC already; Yeah freakin' right. :)
 
I bought it this weekend, and there was no more lag than playing on a PC. I do think 16 players for people with capped upload speeds on broadband) isn't going to be enough. Those are the peole that souldn't be hosting games.

Some cable modems are capped at 12k upload speeds. Mainly used to prevent people form running FTP's.
 
Blade said:
Zurich: You've played RTCW online on the PC, right?

This is one reason why I think that the PC is going to be better than consoles online for a while longer..

So far, pretty much any multi-platform game that you can play online is better on the PC. I mean, c'mon.. 4-on-4 RTCW on Xbox with frequent lag? I play RTCW all the time on the PC and the games are 16-on-16 typically! This is with little to no lag on broadband, mind you.. and it's easy as hell to find good servers.

Online works on consoles right now, but some think that it approaches the PC already; Yeah freakin' right. :)

Blade, you'd be surprised how fun some of the smaller, 4 on 4 maps can be (namely Destruction), especially with tightly knit voice comm and team work. I can only imagine 16 on 16 being an exercise in frustration, especially with how the gameplay works.

As for RTCW lag, even running 'perfrectly', they'ved trimmed down the netcode drastically.. the frames per character are disturbingly low. I've said it before and I'll say it again, QuakeWorld is still the best netcode, bar none :)

I think online console gaming will shine with certain genres, namely racers, 3d action/adventures, and fighters (well, should this evolve), but FPSs are so refined and tweaked to hell on PCs, and have been for the past 7 years, that it'll take time for consoles to catch up.

Keep in mind, these are FIRST GEN console online titles, its a little retarded to compare them 1:1 against 6th or 7th gen PC online games.

But, to reiterate my port, if MS wants to push FPSs as the showcase titles for XBL, they're going to NEED dedicated server farms (especially for anything above 8 on 8).

However, go figure. Like I said, MotoGP just plain flies with 16 people, even on mediocre cable connections.
 
I highly doubt that it is the CPU or memory causing the lag. The #1 reason is that the majority of people trying to host games are on assymetric DSL/Cable with crappy upstream rates.

I can't host a good counter-strike server, and I have a 2.4Ghz P4 w/1gb of DDR memory, because my Cable is like 100kps upstream.

Vast majority of good FPS servers on the internet are dedicated standalone servers on T1 lines atleast.

Only way MS can solve this is by spawning dedicated servers for players on a server farm.

Nothing to do with the XBox's "power" to be a host.
 
Interesting info DemoCoder, the CPU wouldn't be a problem even when hosting a game (not dedicated?).

I wonder what the real world costs would be for MS to setup a server farm.. would they go for 200 rackmounted Xboxes? Or an uber-Xeon setup with processing time share? Either way, I guess bandwidth would be an issue, since a 16 player game @ 10k/sec per player (bare minimum for an ideal game) would be pretty high. But seriously, if MS is dead set on selling the XBL experience, they need to go all out on this. P2P just isnt working for FPSs (generally speaking).

Either way, I'm sitting pretty with me 3 meg down, 1 meg up ADSL connection. Guess im just spoiled :p
 
DemoCoder said:
Only way MS can solve this is by spawning dedicated servers for players on a server farm.

Nothing to do with the XBox's "power" to be a host.

The Xbox still cant handle as many people as a PC Can, its not meant
to handle being a server.. I am still curious why MS isnt hosting the servers, thats what Xbox live was SUPPOSED to be all about, what exactly will the monthly fee be going to?
 
Mb = MegaBits
MB = MegaBytes

I already knew this. Read my post again. I'm asking about what meg means, is bit or byte? Additionally, there is a question as to whether it's the computer meg 2^20 vs, the telecom meg which is an even million.
 
Saem said:
Mb = MegaBits
MB = MegaBytes

as to whether it's the computer meg 2^20 vs, the telecom meg which is an even million.

Bandwidth is measured in Bits whereas computer memory in Bytes....btw both computer and telephone bits are same!
 
Back
Top