I've never had bad ping in a multiplayer match. Not that I've played too many of these, but there was one time when I loved playing sieges. But lag? Never.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Err, yeah. That's what latency (ping) and packet loss does. How exactly should they solve it? Clap their hands and chant a prayer that makes all the routers and switches in the world have sub 1 ms processing times? Replace all the ****ty cabling in the world with fiber optics? Make light travel faster than speed of light? Have the game predict what players will do in advance so it can send their keypresses and mouse movements before they make them so that everyone has an effective ping of 0?ronin44 said:
ronin44
Squire
Maybe make game mechanism to sent and receive less data to players have better ping or a program to synchronized latency between players.
I played rome totalwar multyplayer for years but i had no such a problem.
I never had enjoy multiplayer this game cuz that.
I play this game for 5-6 years but im bored only signle playing.
I played rome totalwar multyplayer for years but i had no such a problem.
I never had enjoy multiplayer this game cuz that.
I play this game for 5-6 years but im bored only signle playing.
You do realize the difference in the amount of information sent and real time interaction required between a FPS and a RTS, right?
Less data sent would probably mean either a) more imprecise information on people's movement and attacks or b) same data sent in a compressed format, that would lead to the processor being forced to decompress the information. Both would likely lead to concessions that counteract the benefit gained from reducing the time it takes to send the data currently.
The game synchronizing the latency between players would lead to everyone acting at the latency of the player with the highest ping, because you cannot reduce the latency artificially. That would mean no one would have accurate information on the other players' movements, instead of the low latency players having no accurate information on high latency players' movements and vice versa.
The simple way to fix ping differences is add some sort of filter or governor that makes everyone's the same at 250 ping. This would have the added appeal that terrible players would have similar scores to the most skilled as everything would be spamming. And that is the important thing- equality for all.
ronin44 said:
Maybe he wants TW to do some research quantum entanglement and have instantaneous travel of data.
I'm trying to think of a way to execute a Multiplayer campaign in a fun way.
With the way Battles/Party Encounters work right now in M&B, there is one way of allowing all players to enjoy it.
If a battle starts, players will get to choose whichever side they wish and take control of a unit, or simply stay a spectator.
It would be somewhat like Battle Time. With the exception that all players can begin a fight.
Allowing players to command a team that isn't their own party should be optional.
Of course, this would necessitate removing any parties on the map of less than +/-20 men, so that everybody's game isn't constantly interrupted by people starting fights with looters. To facilitate this, it would be necessary to have players start out strong enough to not need to fight/grind against minor parties. This would essentially be cutting out the early game and skipping straight to the mid-game.
With the way Battles/Party Encounters work right now in M&B, there is one way of allowing all players to enjoy it.
If a battle starts, players will get to choose whichever side they wish and take control of a unit, or simply stay a spectator.
It would be somewhat like Battle Time. With the exception that all players can begin a fight.
Allowing players to command a team that isn't their own party should be optional.
Of course, this would necessitate removing any parties on the map of less than +/-20 men, so that everybody's game isn't constantly interrupted by people starting fights with looters. To facilitate this, it would be necessary to have players start out strong enough to not need to fight/grind against minor parties. This would essentially be cutting out the early game and skipping straight to the mid-game.
I'd like to marry Matheld :3
Redus
Recruit
Rallix said:
If a battle starts the rest could just continue on the campaing maps just like you do with Warband in singleplayer and the AI get's into a fight. If two people (or someone against an AI) get into battle and you walk passed the battlefield you could join in on either side or ignore it and continue to wherever you moving to.
Or just have a standard timer for every battle, which won't allow you to hold half an hour for a single battle.
nothing interesting here 
I don't understand why people bother even checking this thread. The only reason I just did that was because of you
<3
- Status
Similar threads
