• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Server 'host' general question

jam11

Standard Member
I right in thinking that everything you see on your screen is generated by the host (server)? ie your player model, actions, background, other players etc? because my player movements seem 'instant' on my screen.

I imagined there would be some sort of delay because of latency etc?
 

Det

Distinguished Member
There is a delay and latency. You just don't noticeably see it unless you view killcams when you die and what you see isn't what happened.

Tho sometimes there is input lag and you can noticeably tell you are lagging.
 

jam11

Standard Member
There is a delay and latency. You just don't noticeably see it unless you view killcams when you die and what you see isn't what happened.

Tho sometimes there is input lag and you can noticeably tell you are lagging.

So there is no delay on my screen for my actions and what I view? ie my movement? background etc? but players could and will be in different location due to latency?

Say my ping was 200ms from the host, pretty realistic? surely i would notice a 200ms delay in my movements from when i pushed the analog sticks etc?
 

Det

Distinguished Member
No, your PS3 shows you real time (according to you) and the data travels 200ms to the host and then other data is transferred 200ms (plus whatever the other people's ms is) to you.
 

jam11

Standard Member
Arr I see, so its kinda like the other players are fed to your own multiplayer map based on their actions and anti lag is there so you can shoot what you see even though they are in a slightly different position to what your seeing.

So when I enter games and im matchmaked to <75ms ping, thats pretty good right? does that mean I am aleays atleast 75ms away from the host?
 

Det

Distinguished Member
Yes, but you should try to get <50 ping games... it doesn't always mean that you are 75ms from the host. If you are in a lobby where you are say 68ms from the host but he leaves then it migrates to someone who was say 77ms from the host and then it makes you 150(ish)ms from the new host (based on where you are to the host), you'll have a harder time. Just leave after that game and find a new <50ms lobby.
 

jam11

Standard Member
In theory would there be less delay between you and host opposed to you and another player?
As the host would have 0 latency meaning the difference would just be yours (say 100ms) to the host, then yours to another player (say 100ms) totalling difference 200ms?
 

Det

Distinguished Member
In theory, yes... and that's how it worked in MW2 because the host had an advantage of 0 ping and he saw things real time... but the way MW3 works, no one is very sure how it works because the host often has worse issues than others.
 

Stuey1

Prominent Member
Yes, but you should try to get <50 ping games... it doesn't always mean that you are 75ms from the host. If you are in a lobby where you are say 68ms from the host but he leaves then it migrates to someone who was say 77ms from the host and then it makes you 150(ish)ms from the new host (based on where you are to the host), you'll have a harder time. Just leave after that game and find a new <50ms lobby.

Not necessarily true?

If it migrates to a new host who was 77ms from the old host in theory you could be closer to the new host in ms? depends on the geography...

In reality, its best to just judge the game by the gameplay rather than the bars/pre-game ping.
 

jam11

Standard Member
In theory, yes... and that's how it worked in MW2 because the host had an advantage of 0 ping and he saw things real time... but the way MW3 works, no one is very sure how it works because the host often has worse issues than others.

Wouldn't the host in mw2 still experience very very very minor misalignments in player locations because of the 'player to host latency of each individual player' obeit not even noticable is the majority of cases.

Also I am right in thinking that ping ms in cod refers to the distance 'one way' to the host? not the total round trip distance?
 

Det

Distinguished Member
Not necessarily true?

If it migrates to a new host who was 77ms from the old host in theory you could be closer to the new host in ms? depends on the geography...

In reality, its best to just judge the game by the gameplay rather than the bars/pre-game ping.
Yah, that's why I said "Based on where you are to the new host"... you could actually be 2ms from the new host, but you will still have ms added on to going to your data center and back to the new host thereby adding some ms on.

It's all relative.
 

Det

Distinguished Member
Wouldn't the host in mw2 still experience very very very minor misalignments in player locations because of the 'player to host latency of each individual player' obeit not even noticable is the majority of cases.

Also I am right in thinking that ping ms in cod refers to the distance 'one way' to the host? not the total round trip distance?
Minor misalignments not noticeable to the host, yes. You don't notice lag most of the times until you watch killcams (which is actually a combination of what happened on both screens at the time of death).

Yes. The ping to the host was significantly less than the ping to the host to another player and vice versa.
 
Det said:
In theory, yes... and that's how it worked in MW2 because the host had an advantage of 0 ping and he saw things real time... but the way MW3 works, no one is very sure how it works because the host often has worse issues than others.

I get host 90% of the time and it's ridiculous how big of a difference it makes. When I got host in MW2 I guess you could say I had a slight advantage. But not too much, as when I wasn't host I never had problems 1v1 vs the host. So the system seemed to work pretty well.

In MW3 however, it's so noticeable I can't believe I'm still playing it. I consider myself to be decent at the game, but I've lost count of the amount of times I go into a game, go on a 6/7 death streak from the start then leave the game and get 'host migration'. Every game I have left due to terrible lag, I have been host. My KD and Win/loss are getting trashed.

Can't wait for the alleged fix
 

jam11

Standard Member
So as host your saying your getting artifictial latency? to notice a big disadvantage I reckon they must add a hell of a lot on!

The only advantage you would have with that is against stationary opponents who are watching a corner, with your big latency, by the time they see you on their screen turn the corner, you would have already killed them on your screen i would imagine.
 

ryzer30

Established Member
I get host 90% of the time and it's ridiculous how big of a difference it makes. When I got host in MW2 I guess you could say I had a slight advantage. But not too much, as when I wasn't host I never had problems 1v1 vs the host. So the system seemed to work pretty well.

In MW3 however, it's so noticeable I can't believe I'm still playing it. I consider myself to be decent at the game, but I've lost count of the amount of times I go into a game, go on a 6/7 death streak from the start then leave the game and get 'host migration'. Every game I have left due to terrible lag, I have been host. My KD and Win/loss are getting trashed.

Can't wait for the alleged fix

Change your nat type to Moderate for an interim fix?
 
You'd think that but no.

In a 1v1. I shoot them, get lots of hit markers because of the ping that's been added.

They shoot me, have no added ping so registered the kill right away.

I'm no expert but going by common sense, I'd imagine that's roughly what's happening.

There has been times where I'll unload a clip in someone and get lots of hit markers. Drop to the floor to reload and then a magic +100 pops up about a half second later. The kills are taking that long to register sometimes.
 

mark74uk

Distinguished Member
Clarky exact same problems here mate. Restrict your bandwidth if you have the facility on your router. I have seriously restricted my upload bandwidth on my router and no longer get host, i think the game views my crappy bandwidth as not good enough to host. Before i did this i was getting 8mb upload with Infinity and pulling host all the time and then getting hammered by every man and his dog. My nat type is still open and the game plays fine.
 
mark74uk said:
Clarky exact same problems here mate. Restrict your bandwidth if you have the facility on your router. I have seriously restricted my upload bandwidth on my router and no longer get host, i think the game views my crappy bandwidth as not good enough to host. Before i did this i was getting 8mb upload with Infinity and pulling host all the time and then getting hammered by every man and his dog. My nat type is still open and the game plays fine.

What's your current upload? Mines touching 4. Not sure how to do this but will get googling and give it a go.

Cheers bud
 

kchain

Established Member
An easy way to knacker your upload speed might be to upload some photos to flicker or something like that.

Not tried this but reckon that might work ... it may be you only need to do this at the start of the game to avoid getting host and then stop it and play with your full upload speed.
 

Det

Distinguished Member
Don't think a few 800kb photos will do the trick.

Uploading to youtube would do it though and you can cancel out of it once the game gets going, just beware the migration, lol.

I am complacent on just being ****** at the connection, I can't be bothered to fiddle with router settings or sabatoging my internet to play a game.
 
kchain said:
An easy way to knacker your upload speed might be to upload some photos to flicker or something like that.

Not tried this but reckon that might work ... it may be you only need to do this at the start of the game to avoid getting host and then stop it and play with your full upload speed.

I've racked up 60 hours, how many photos do you think I've got?

If this is a ploy to get me to upload pictures of me for your "needs" it ain't gonna work
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom