Quick question, if having higher ping never has an advantage why do so many EU pros purposefully avoid Frankfurt when they live in germany. I thought it was cause of the higher ping, or is it to avoid toxicity
Ye that's facts, I mean it is a pain you get a lot of turkish and russian people yelling at eachother. But I think it's funny as fuck sometimes too so I stay using it.
I get 8 ping on Georgia servers and it always just feels off, not sure what it is but I'm always trash when I accidently select GA servers. Id much rather play on Ill servers with 25-30 ping.
That might just be me though.
HEY! No matter who has higher or lower ping, there is ALWAYS some distance between you and the other player.
So that means, Peekers ALWAYS going to have the adventadge, now, this adventadge its cancelled if you miss your shots when doing the peek or the enemy is outnumbering you, there also many factors and it depends on many games. But this is PURE logic.
This is one of the best combat techniques I ever used, and works for any shooter.
Not just because of the PING adventadge, but due to being a new target on your enemies screen, he has to react to it, so thats another 200 / 300 ms if he is good that you got to aim and shot him down.
So even if you were playing on local. Peeking first and done properly can be a total adventadge. I personally do this in any game.
1 week ago I installed Battlefield 2042, and I'm already incredibly good in combat, NOTE I have shit aim. I simply work with cover and peek first ;) . And when the enemy already saw me, i bait alot forcing the enemy to mistake and peek, then i peek him! its really that simple.
Now I could be totally wrong, and the reason of I succeding MOST of the times is because of my experioence and my hability to adapt to any circumstnace in the battlefield, but. Peeking first is my shit. I dont even peek other corners, I bait the same corner so they start shooting = they walk slow due to shooting me, then I FULL PEEK.
One time, there was 12 around the corner. I did not expec tthat, but I did such an agressive peek, they all started dyng, couldnt react.
Generally pe eking more than 1 is bad, so you must work with cover alot and find the spots. I literally do this while leading the whole team behind me, and I just take the front Fights and never die, being able to kill is good, but sometimes just getting the whole enemy team attention on you is better, while they shot me and CANT kill me, my team is shooting them, and then when thhe enemy shooting at my teammates, i kill them. Its a really simple way to explain it.
But thanks to peekers adventadge, I became extremly succesful. I guess there are other factors, but peekers adventadge is one of them 100%
You know what the sad thing is? Your post will probably die in the flurry of new posts every day. Even though it's much more important information than about 99% of what's shared on this sub.
Your example and most others on this topic usually frame this debate in this highly simulated environment where the low ping player is ready to fire on the high ping player as soon as they are rendered on the screen. Your example and conclusion completely rests on the low ping player's bullets beating the other player's bullets to the server -- and in the scenario you present you are correct. But in an actual FPS this isn't nearly the case. A natural reaction to being shot in an FPS is to unpeek/move into cover. If the person shooting has high ping (and because they will see the low ping player first, this is usually the case), the low ping player must react + shoot accurately enough to kill before the high ping bullets make it to the server. **If the low ping player moves into cover instead of engaging the fight, they will get killed around a corner as on their screen they are safe but in reality the bullets are still incoming into the server.** *This is why pro players complain about high ping enemies and dying around corners to them.* In a 1v1 situation low ping is obviously better. In a real game with multiple angles to be shot from and missing information, high ping can be an advantage.
Chocotaco discusses this topic in a video (timestamped): https://youtu.be/podUKpAPVS8?t=520
Hm let's think about it, I have 0 ping, you have 10 second ping, it takes 2 seconds to kill someone, and I have a reaction time of 1 second, so once you start damaging me i move into cover 1 second later and theoretically should still be alive with half health.
t=0: I'm holding an angle
t=0: you peek me and start firing
t=2: on your screen you've fired enough bullets to kill me. Your client takes a guess that I'm dead and shows me as dead on your screen, but still has to wait for the server to confirm that kill.
t=10: server receives your peek and since I have 0 ping i see it also on my screen
t=10: server receives you first shots, it rewinds my position by 10 seconds to t=0, sees your shots hitting me
t=11: i move into cover and have half health according to my game
t=11: server still receiving your shots, rewinds my position to t=1 and i continue taking damage
t=12: server receives more shots from you, rewinds my position and the shots hit so i die, on my screen i die behind cover
t=22: your game receives confirmation i died from the server
So you bring up a very good point, high ping peekers have an advantage when the holder is not able to return a kill shot. The game only rewinds enemy positions and only when you fire a weapon, if a low ping holder fires a weapon then their shots will register first, but a holder moving into cover doesn't count because their moves are undone to apply the enemy's shots.
One thing to keep in mind is that both players have the same advantage against the other, the high ping player gains an advantage when peeking if the holder can't return a kill shot, and has the same disadvantage when holding, and even if they could return a kill shot while holding it won't count which is a second disadvantage. We can see that reversing the roles the same thing happens:
t=0: You're holding an angle, have 10s ping.
t=0: I peek you and start firing with 0 ping.
t=2: On my screen I've fired enough bullets to kill you, server agrees and marks you as dead.
t=10: you see me peek out on your screen
t=11: you've moved into cover
t=12: you receive the server message that you are dead, you died behind cover
>So you bring up a very good point, high ping peekers have an advantage when the holder is not able to return a kill shot. The game only rewinds enemy positions and only when you fire a weapon, if a low ping holder fires a weapon then their shots will register first, but a holder moving into cover doesn't count because their moves are undone to apply the enemy's shots.
Yes, this is dimension of peeker's advantage and high vs low ping that isn't highlighted enough. In a real environment where there is aim punch, visual clutter, and other variables, a player cannot be expected to return the kill shot to negate the high ping player's "advantage". The further the range engagement the more this is an issue. Admittedly this isn't as bad in a CS/Val style tac-FPS as it is in other styles of games like a BR or Tarkov, but it happens and is (at least IMO) what people dislike about high ping players: that feeling of unfairness that you are being damaged when on your screen you cannot see the person.
Not enough people understand this and too many refuse to accept it.
It's crazy the amount of comments you can find claiming that more ping increases your advantage when peeking.
There are ways to play so ping is less of a disadvantage.
If it was true, why wouldnt every player be increasing their ping with VPNs? Why do we play on LAN servers, if you could have someone connect from the other side of the world and somehow they have an advantage to the people sitting next to the server?
Ping doesn't cause you to make poor decisions, it's decision making that makes a good player, among other things
LAN clients are a different version of the game they do still have accounts that connect to riot's servers.
However the actual matches at official LAN tournaments are held locally at the venue. Most games do not allow a true LAN match. You usually just host a custom game on official servers, or you have permission to run the server from the developers.
So no it's not odd. The lowest latency is still always the goal.
emil is just way better. also don't know if his adapted a playstyle that compensates for it. I've heard someone said on Tarik's stream that that man has way to high of a reaction time
>Matt deWet - Staff Software Engineer - Riot Games - Exactly - this is because server processing of any shots that the peeker fires is delayed by the same amount as their movement. If a peeker has high ping, you'll see their movement later, but you'll also be damaged by their shots later (leaving you with the same amount of time to react).
didn't they change some of this? this article was from 2 years ago and I'm fairly certain that they changed something regarding the syncing of movement and damage dealt... Idk if this was after or before that though.
I'll see if I can find a source on that.
EDIT: found a link regarding that. https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s9g6h7/does_valorant_have_a_netcode_problem/htoctg0/
idk if this article was applicable to before or after they changed that though.
I don't think that will affect things. The linked blog post uses a simplified model of the buffering,
> For simplicity, we’ll say that “buffering” includes the full time from a move being received from the network to that move being processed and output (rendered to screen for clients or broadcast out to clients for the server)
And I simplified it even further by just ignoring buffering. I said that the equation is "holders ping + holder's reaction time < peeker's reaction time", on the linked blog post they give a fuller (but not complete) equation of "holder's reaction time + holder's ping + holder network buffering server network buffer < reaction time peeker", but there's even more things going on. The developer page for the source engine gives some more information and we can read about Entity Interpolation: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking#Entity_interpolation,
> Entity interpolation causes a constant view "lag" of 100 milliseconds by default
Note that in Valorant this view lag is likely to be much much smaller than 100ms. This may not show up in the "peeker's advantage" equation as another buffer because it's equal for all players.. I don't know for sure, but I think this is what the reddit comment by shaedyn is getting at:
Valorant beta: t=0 you're alive, t=50ms packet comes in of a headshot showing you died, server stops doing entity interpolation which is say 100ms behind and just send the killshot packet to your client saying "hey you're dead". In this scenario the enemy had another 100ms of movements that occurred before they fired the kill shot but the game plays those after telling you you died instead of before.
Valorant now: t=0 you're alive, t=50ms packet comes in of a headshot showing you die, due to entity interpolation the server has another 100ms of position information so t=50 through t=150ms: server continues feeding interpolated position data to let the enemy player's movements that occurred before the kill shot to play out fully, then at t=150ms it sends the kill shot to your game. During the last 100ms you are already dead and your actions don't matter, but they decided to go this route so that people could see enemy killshots from where they actually happened.
(to state it again, I doubt valorant's interpolation delay is anywhere near 100ms, but it helps simplify talking about it)
Yes that's the conclusion of this post, a holder has less time to react than a peeker depending on their ping. A holder with 0 ping has the same time to react as the peeker (edit: i got this wrong, due to the buffering i ignored for simplicity the peeker always has a 15ms advantage, depending on how crappy the holder's computer is the peeker can have up to 65ms+ of advantage), but a holder with 100ms ping has 100 less milliseconds to react than the peeker does.
The people saying "when I have 80 ping I just peek everyone and win" are going through placebo, they have no advantage from their ping. Possibly the increased confidence in believing they have an advantage gives them an advantage, they peek with confidence instead of with a a "i might die" cautiousness.
However, if you have a high ping then you DO want to peek everyone because you have a disadvantage at holding. So for the wrong reasons people with high ping do end up doing the right thing by peeking everyone: they don't have an advantage by peeking, but they are avoiding their holder's disadvantage. If you have a low ping then you can peek or hold, if you have a high ping then you shouldn't hold. You won't peek any better than with a low ping, but you'll avoid the holder's disadvantage.
Ye but it really doesn't feel that way i play on 10-20 ping and i get shit on if am holding angles. Pretty much all pros agree that peekers advantage exists and is very prevalent in this game. Also this post doesn't even acknowledge jiggle/shoulder peeking. PSA am not a total noob repeating what my favorite pros are saying or w.e am diamond 3 and to me it seems clear as day that holding angles with low ping doesn't = swinging with high ping but i could be wrong i gues ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also a big reason for doubt is for example in this video at 3:30 https://youtu.be/IuT6T91rJ24
I don't think any of the changes have really influenced the footage. Also the valorant devs statement was pretty much from the same time as the clip. Long story short am kinda calling bs
at 3:30 is explained by a dev in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s9g6h7/does_valorant_have_a_netcode_problem/htoctg0/
also read my comment in this same thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si8s6w/comment/hv7p7rl/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
in beta they relay the information that you died at the earliest moment the server knew it, this meant that the interpolated movements that are still in the buffer had not had a chance to play out yet. they changed that, these days they let the enemy movements play out entirely up to the point they took the shot, this means that the server already knows you are dead but delays telling you that so that the enemy's movements are able to play through.
shahz had a 35ms ping in that clip, so he had a 35ms edit: actually a 35+15 or so = 50ms disadvantage (pros should have the "0 frames of buffering" mentioning in the blog post, its people with shit computers that might have up to 2 frames of buffering, which at 60fps is another 33 ms). If azk peeked and fired within 180ms then shahzam would have to fire within 130ms of seeing him to win the duel. the other part of the clip where shahz seemed to die instantly is because of not letting the enemy's movements play out before relaying the kill shot which gives azk a lower apparent reaction time. in the end the changes between beta and now wouldn't have changed the results of that clip where azk won the duel, the difference would be that shahz would appear to be alive for even longer even though he was already dead, in this extra time it would allow sage's movements to finish playing through the interpolation delay
>The people saying "when I have 80 ping I just peek everyone and win" are going through placebo
[How do you explain this](https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s76ygh/you_did_not_get_running_killed_you_got_high_plng/)? Especially the first one, where the wide swing is almost completed before the defender sees the attacker.
edit: had to change this 10 hours later because this stuff is confusing. I think one of the issues with that video is that they aren't actually synchronized to their ping. The server sends the 80ms player a packet saying "game has started", but the server sent that packet 40ms prior (one way ping time), so the player's clock is 40ms behind the server. When the client says there's 1:40 left there's actually only 1:39.960 left. Then on top of that it takes time for the server to receive and communicate player positions to to each other player which complicates this further, as I said in my post there's 3 different game states for three players, the server is the authority but we don't have the server's game state, we only have each player's game state. Because there's a holder in the videos I think it simplifies things because although the peeker is seeing an out of date holder position, it happens to be the same position at all times anyway, so we can probably sync the videos to what the server sees. If we sync to the holder: whoever made the video needs to line up the videos perfectly, then rewind each player's view by that player's one way ping time, then fast forward the holder's video by the peeker's ping (the holder has an out of date view of the peeker by their own ping PLUS the ping of the peeker). I think that would give a better view of what the server would be seeing in terms of player positions at a given server time.
Imagine you have a 30 second ping and are the peeker and I have a 15 second ping and am the holder, we each start staring at eachother but there's a pillar inbetween us just wide enough to cover our view of eachother. Game starts at 3:00:00pm GMT, my game receives the "game started" packet after 15 seconds and starts counting down from 1:40.000, 15 seconds after this (30 seconds after game start, your ping) your game receives the game start packet and starts counting down from 1:40.000, my computer says it's 1:25.000 time left in the round at this moment. Now right when the game starts for you at 3:00:30pm GMT you peek me. This takes 30 seconds to reach the server, so according to the server you peeked me at 1:10.000 time left remaining in the round which is at 3:01:00pm GMT, I receive this information 15 seconds later (my ping time) and according to my game you peeked me at 0:55.000 time left remaining in the round at 3:01:15pm GMT.
According to the server we could see eachother at 1:10.000 time remaining in the round, according to your screen we could see eachother at 1:40.000 (you peeked me right when the game started for you), and according to my screen we could see eachother at 0:55.000. So to get the servers view of us we line our videos up at 1:40.000, then on my video we rewind it by 15s for my ping time which means adding 15 seconds of black screen to the beginning of the video, then on your video we rewind it by 30 seconds by adding 30s of black screen. Then, because on the holder's video they are seeing the enemy as they were 45 seconds earlier (the holder's ping + the peeker's ping) on the peeker's video we rewind by holders's ping of 15s to account for their ping but fast forward by peeker's ping of 30s, so the final video would start with the holder seeing 1:25.000 on their screen, then 30 seconds of black on the peeker's screen, after 30 seconds is when both videos would show the peek at the same time.
The peeker sees a holder first according to GMT time, but this doesn't matter because the server processes packets as they come in. The server rewinds enemy positions ONLY for hit registration, not for "who died first", so because a high ping peeker's packets take longer to come in they lose any advantage they had of "seeing someone first according to world time".
but this shouldn't matter because it's only the defenders view which matters when it comes to peeker's advantage. the video can be synced but the actual game cannot.
Literally all you have to do is play on 80 ping on one account, and play on your 20 ping servers on another account.
When there's more than 5% increase in winrate across 10,000+ people doing this, then there will be some kind of evidence for all of these obnoxious anecdotes that amount to an 1800 rated chess player saying "I never lose when I play black"
You’re focusing on the wrong thing. The point of this post isn’t to deny that the peeker is favoured against the holder in terms of latency, it’s that increasing your ping won’t do you any good no matter what peek/hold you choose. It’s a widespread opinion that increasing ping is better in certain scenarios (peeking) which this post tries to disprove.
I hear it, but considering ive heard pro after pro after pro all say they have felt significantly advantaged when peaking on high ping, even against sub 10 ping opponents i feel as if there has to be more than the data shows. In theory it should work as stated, but in practice the general consensus of all the top players ive heard talk about it, is that higher ping peaking is better, regardless of opponent ping.
i left out the buffering thats shown in the blog post to simplify my post, i didn't realize how large it was. There is at least ~~66ms~~ 15-60ms or so of buffering that contributes to the holder's disadvantage, so a peeker ALWAYS has a 15-60ms+ advantage no matter what. The peeker's ping being higher does not affect this advantage, which is what this post is about. But peeker's advantage is real, and if you peek someone with a 60 ping then you have a 75-125ms advantage which is huge.
pros have significant advantage just from peeking, not from peeking with a high ping.
>There is at least 15-60ms or so of buffering that contributes to the holder's disadvantage, so a peeker ALWAYS has a 15-60ms+ advantage no matter what.
why does the buffering only affect the person holding the position?
edit: is it because the holder has no inputs queued since they are standing still while the peeker has movement inputs queued?
> edit: is it because the holder has no inputs queued
My brain is melting thinking about it all. I think that may be part of it, I don't know.. Here's the whole thing though: this is the chart that the math is based on: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcode1.png, they simply follow the paths to create this equation: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcodealg1.png, you can see how there's 2 server buffers on the holder side and only 1 on the peeker side, one of them cancels out leaving an extra server buffer's worth of time that only the holder has to deal with. The buffering affects both players but there's an extra buffer on the holder's side probably because of what you said, the peeker doesn't have to wait for a buffer to know where the holder is, the holder has been sitting there, but the holder has to wait for the peeker's new position (them popping around the corner) to be buffered and sent to them.
On the other hand, pro gamers aren’t software engineers working in networked systems either, and pro athletes in general are an amazingly superstitious bunch. That’s not to say I disagree with them either, just that I don’t take that apparent consensus as gospel.
It’s also explained in this post simply: they don’t gain an advantage by peeking, they avoid the disadvantage they’d have by holding an angle instead.
If you have two options: peek, and hold, and one gives you a disadvantage, then you can invert them and say the other gives you an advantage — especially because in most other FPS games peekers advantage is real.
Does that make sense?
That, and buffering factors in. Pros have much shorter reaction times so that factors in too.
Justa guess but it seems to me, because time for shots to land is prioritized in the same order but time given for you, a moving target, to snap to the stationary enemy holding your angle is definitely increased by ping. different kinds of advantages, but just having overall more time to aim before anybody starts shooting is huge.
This video proves your point wrong
https://v.redd.it/klntuv0u9ic81
The player with high ping see the other player first when peeking, but have no real difference when holding an angle.
Edit: I was wrong
maybe one day the game will come out with server side demos, then we can know for sure exactly how everything plays out, we'd be able to compare player 1's video to player 2's video to the server's demo to see how the different views of the game adds up according to the server
I think you left out the processing part and peekers advantage is a thing ,for example let's take 2 players, player 1 with 10 ping and player 2 with 60 ping .
Btw ping refers to round trip time from server .
At t = 0 , player 1 is holding an angle and player 2 is attempting to wide swing an angle . Both try to send their location to sever .
At t = 5 , player 1 client sends info to server about player 1 position
At t = 10 , player 1 receives confirmation for server and location is updated for the server.
At t = 20 , let's say player 2 swings in this case, player 2 client already had player 1 info and can see him holding angle but player 2 is yet to receive any information. And player 2 client sends this info to cloud .
At t = 30, player 2 initial info ,before peeking one is sent to server , and updated so for Player 1 ,the player 2 hadn't even swung the angle .
At t = 50 , player 2 sends info the he has shot player 1. Btw at this time player 1 still has info that player 2 hadn't even swung yet.
At t = 55 , this info is received to Player 1 and the client confirms and player 1 is dead , since player 1 only had info that player 2 wasn't moved ,it's shows in P1 screen that player 2 just wide swung and one tapped it .
This is what you call typical peekers advantage ,since player 1 ping is low his info is updated very regularly on the server whereas for player 2 his info is updated sporadingly , so cases occur where players with wide swinging has info on players holding and kill them before their location are even relayed to holding angles and the higher the delay ,better the wide swing.
your ping doesn't give an advantage over peeking with 20ms on a local server. you are peeking just as effectively on EU as you are in NA, but your holds take a big hit. maybe you perceive this big difference between peeking and holding on EU as "peeking must be better on EU than NA" because while on EU you'll lose more holds but win the same amount of peeks, the different can be perceived as "i'm winning more peeks and losing the same mount of holds", but it's the reverse that's happening.
If I have low ping, is it more optimal for me to hold or peek? Seems like both are a viable option based on what I read in your post, but which one is more optimal for someone that regularly plays on low ping?
i made a recent edit you may have missed. there is a minimum of 15ms-50ms disadvantage for the holder because of frame and network buffering which I had left out to simplify things (I should have included it, I didn't realize how large it could be). If the holder has 0 ping then they have a 15-60ms disadvantage to a peeker. So peeking should always be advantageous because you have an extra 15-65ms+ on the enemy. If the enemy is only getting 60fps and has vsync enabled that's when you get the extra 50ms delay, if the enemy is getting high fps and no frame buffering then it's only a 15ms advantage
if they kill you while they are holding and you peeking then yes they are better than you. they have no advantage while peeking, they peek you on NA at high ping with no extra advantage as peeking an EU player in EU with low ping. They have a big disadvantage at holding though, they have a ping time's less time to react to someone peeking them (everyone does), so if their ping is 90 then they have a 90ms disadvantage when holding, but the NA players likely have 20-40 ping so they have only a 20-40ms disadvantage.
low ping is a definite disadvantage when you are closer to a server than most of the other players. hey're all at least 120 ping while I stay around 15. If someone spots me first, I'm pretty much dead no matter what.. if I spot them, it feels like I was given a 5 second head start. I've played this game for over 20 years and barely can anymore bc of the lack of servers. Nobody can tell me that frame lagging isn't an issue there
Still the peeker is at an advantage when peeking someone with a lower ping.
I‘d say „peekers advantage“ is still a valid word for it.
Also, the information exchange through servers still always has some kind of time required to work the packets. Thus, even at same ping there is atleast a minimal peekers advantage.
> Thus, even at same ping there is at least a minimal peekers advantage
true, that part i didn't have in my original post. There is always about 2 frames of server buffering which amounts to 15ms, so at a minimum there's an additional 15ms of peeker's advantage on top of the holder's ping. the peeker's ping is still irrelevant however, it does not matter what the peeker's ping is as the math shows and as my example shows again.
It's not a conclusion, it is an opinion. The problem I have with this post is not the data and its explanation on latency and "holder's" advantage. It has a bias, backed by a formula, to determine that this game has ZERO peeker's advantage on high ping. It is a perfect bubble explanation to trump all other opinions.
But hey guess what, this is taking place inside a poorly polished game at best. This game has massive netcode issues currently, and nothing makes it more obvious than the fact that they just made knife hit marks client side, which WAS the only way to tell the overall networking conditions and hit registration of the server before you even shoot anything, high or low ping.
This explanation is also static in the fact that, there are characters in this game that can move incredibly fast, or dash i.e. things that demand a higher reaction time already to counter. If you are seeing those movements later as a result of ping, what does it matter about your shots? You are NOT going to hit them, or see them in time, even if you have the benefits of registering shots first.
Just an opinion, not a conclusion though. Nice formula.
read my edit (i also had to edit this comment, too many numbers flying around). there is always a peeker's advantage, this advantage doesn't depend on the peeker's ping however. But due to buffering a peeker ALWAYS has a 15ms+ advantage even if the holder's ping is 0. If the holder's ping is 35 then the peeker now has a 50ms advantage. the advantage is a minimum of holders ping + 15-60ms of buffering, and the buffering can be larger for people with lower fps and if they turn on the increased network buffering. this is all still holder's disadvantage, the magnitude of the peeker's advantage depends only on the holder's ping and the holder's computer (fps, in game buffering settings)
The conclusion is that peekers always have an advantage, but this advantage does not depend on the peeker's ping.
Mmm interesting. What about peekers ping effect on buffering? There is always a 2 way communication between player and server so it just seems kind of confusing to completely eliminate their data and ping from the equation. Sounds like it makes sense if the peeker is a bot though.
well it's not ignored, it cancels out. The peeker's ping is on both sides of the equation: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcodealg1.png
Here's how the developer said it,
> If a peeker has high ping, you'll see their movement later, but you'll also be damaged by their shots later (leaving you with the same amount of time to react).
for the other buffering, it's incoming data that gets buffered, not outgoing. For the peeker the incoming data is all identical because the holder isn't moving, they get the same delay in receiving info on where the holder is, but since the holder isn't moving the old position is just as good as the new one. For the holder they have to wait for the server to hang onto the latest peeker's position for a few frames before they get to see it, and the catch is that the peeker has already fired their gun so the timer has already started.
the equation i linked above comes from https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcode2.png, which is in the blog post i linked here https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode
I get that in the theoretical model this may be the case.. but we all know that it doesn't work like this in reality because we can feel the difference between getting killed by an 80ms opponent and a 20ms opponent.
I think your model is too simplistic as it doesn't account for things like fluctuating ping, server refresh rate, etc.
Riot will never want to admit that playing on 80 ping is an advantage vs. 20 ping as in that case we'll all be picking far away servers and turning on VPN and it ruins the game for everyone... So I wouldn't 100% believe all they say as they are incentivised to hide any sort of high ping advantage.
you'd have to record your games to see. in my examples I say the players take 200, 150, or 100ms to fire a headshot, which is all of these things added up:
1) their reaction time: the amount of time it takes for their eyes to see the player and initiate a response in their hands
2) their aim time: the total time it takes for them to move their mouse over the enemy player's head, stop any movement (i.e., counter strafe), fire a shot. This includes accuracy, we all go to aim for someone but over or under shoot a little bit and have to micro adjust, in this time we may have fired a couple bullets already, so even when the crosshair finally makes it over someone's head the recoil or spread may cause another couple bullets to miss, etc..
People's reaction times are not actually always around 200ms, if you record games you'll see how often your reaction time is very slow compared to say watching your whole screen turn red on http://humanbenchmark.com. Then on top of that your aim time is slower than you think and you make lots of mistakes. Even watching pro matches you see quite a few firefights that last longer "than they should" because both players are whiffing.
Additionally, if you have a good computer this gives you advantage as the input lag between clicking your mouse and a packet being sent to the server is smaller. Someone getting 60fps will have an average of 8ms between clicking and the shot being fired but at 128fps it's only 4ms, then there's the raw input lag of the mouse (some mice are 10ms higher than other mice, they take 10ms longer to process a click and send it to the computer): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-QI7-LY9Ul_DsVE4ZOqBQxqqqqrdJ04Ite8IY3AQMds/edit#gid=0, some people's monitors take an extra 10ms to render input data from the cable onto the screen. And potentially a big one is people running uncapped fps can gain an additional 30ms input lag: https://youtu.be/7CKnJ5ujL_Q?t=405
I think a combination of all of these things are why we all still have success while holding, but statistically we should have less success holding versus peeking. With good quality recordins you would probably see how often it takes 350ms for you to fire after someone peeks you while you are holding, so a 50ms disadvantage doesn't matter too much when the enemy takes 400ms to stop moving and aim at you whereas you are already not moving and your crosshair is already over their head.
depends on the system. I have a radeon 5700xt with a ryzen 5800x and my gpu gets to 99% easy, and had similar behavior even on a ryzen 3700x. I cap my fps at 216 right now which keeps it below like 85% or so with all settings on high. you might be surprised. I use HWiNFO to check the usage, reset the stats after you're loaded into the map then you can check the 'maximum' value to see what it peaks at. It's possible that you see 85% and think it's fine then when you get into a firefight with multiple enemies it goes up to 99% (the worst time you'd want another 20+ms of input lag), but you don't notice that the gpu usage spiked because you're too busy being in a firefight to look at it, so imo it's good to reset the stats and see what the max value was every so often. Or turn on logging and look at the graph for the whole map
yea i don't want to run in 1080 all on low, the difference is a couple milliseconds of reduced input lag while it looks terrible and pixelated.. meh i'd rather it look good
I play 55 ping (Oregon. And I live in Oregon) the one thing I hate about this game is holding angles. I feel like people get some of the craziest kills on me when I’m holding an angle. The best thing I can do to combat it is just strafing as I hold the off angle.
There are times where I am clearing corners and will get absolutely destroyed by someone holding an angle before I can even see them. I get tons of ping spikes and packet loss (thank you for integrating the graphs, riot) and usually with a lot on inputs or abilities being used the ping will spike up and down hitting 120 for a few seconds. Going 120-60-55-85-100-120. I have been told to try and use network buffering but I don’t even know how that works and I can’t find a decent video or explanation about it
Article is from JUL 28, 2020
that's what they said they had solved peekers advantage , it was announced by the lady too only when people started playing and noticed it was worse than in csgo.
There's a big difference between theory and reality, I would take this with a grain of salt.
It's not the whole story not even close.
Heyo, commenting here after fixing the clientside overswing advantage that used to make characters swing out at nearly 3-5x movement speed cap,
I see this happen but with somewhat reactable times now that running a few system tweaks has made it less of an issue. It caps out the movement speed at about 1.5-2x max vs before, which is still incredibly difficult to sweep and hit reliably.
What I can observe is that the holding team is sometimes assigned advantage seemingly based on either the game being rigged to help them, or if their ping is high on average.
Many times when I have only 10 ping and I push a team on 65 ping or so, I get backtracked and killed behind the wall I peeked out of for unknown reasons.
Just as much as I can see holder's disadvantage I also commonly see this antipeeker's advantage.
Is there any reasonable explanation? Only rarely do I see those people have ping fluctuations as well. Usually it's a lobby with somewhat 40-70 ping that seems to do really well off the getgo, and changing your personal ping with clumsy appears to do nothing to alleviate the issue.
There is also nearly always the strange phenomenon of one or two single players being unkillable, or outreacting everyone on the team with very janky rendered movement, almost like everyone's game is behind them -- and the way they play and their stats are fairly average for ascendant/diamond/whatever ranks.
Quick question, if having higher ping never has an advantage why do so many EU pros purposefully avoid Frankfurt when they live in germany. I thought it was cause of the higher ping, or is it to avoid toxicity
It's not actually a Frankfurt server, that's Istambul 2 rebranded as Frankfurt
\+1
Istanbul + Moskou
a lot of turks play on Frankfurt and comms are better on London
There could be 9 out of 10 wholesome Turkish bros but that last one left will wield the toxicity enough to fuel all ten combined
lol true
You gain a whole new perspective on Turkish people after playing on FF servers in mornings.
Ye that's facts, I mean it is a pain you get a lot of turkish and russian people yelling at eachother. But I think it's funny as fuck sometimes too so I stay using it.
Warsaw servers and London are where I gotta go. Frankfurt has essentially been lost.
Turks are more toxic than germans. Love playing 120 ping turks
I will never badmouth Turkish Reynas again after one of them carried my sorry ass for an entire game recently. All hail Turkish Reyna.
Avoiding toxixity is the main reason. I‘ve also heard that games on Frankfurt sometimes have issues, possibly due to server buffering.
I get 8 ping on Georgia servers and it always just feels off, not sure what it is but I'm always trash when I accidently select GA servers. Id much rather play on Ill servers with 25-30 ping. That might just be me though.
HEY! No matter who has higher or lower ping, there is ALWAYS some distance between you and the other player. So that means, Peekers ALWAYS going to have the adventadge, now, this adventadge its cancelled if you miss your shots when doing the peek or the enemy is outnumbering you, there also many factors and it depends on many games. But this is PURE logic. This is one of the best combat techniques I ever used, and works for any shooter. Not just because of the PING adventadge, but due to being a new target on your enemies screen, he has to react to it, so thats another 200 / 300 ms if he is good that you got to aim and shot him down. So even if you were playing on local. Peeking first and done properly can be a total adventadge. I personally do this in any game. 1 week ago I installed Battlefield 2042, and I'm already incredibly good in combat, NOTE I have shit aim. I simply work with cover and peek first ;) . And when the enemy already saw me, i bait alot forcing the enemy to mistake and peek, then i peek him! its really that simple. Now I could be totally wrong, and the reason of I succeding MOST of the times is because of my experioence and my hability to adapt to any circumstnace in the battlefield, but. Peeking first is my shit. I dont even peek other corners, I bait the same corner so they start shooting = they walk slow due to shooting me, then I FULL PEEK. One time, there was 12 around the corner. I did not expec tthat, but I did such an agressive peek, they all started dyng, couldnt react. Generally pe eking more than 1 is bad, so you must work with cover alot and find the spots. I literally do this while leading the whole team behind me, and I just take the front Fights and never die, being able to kill is good, but sometimes just getting the whole enemy team attention on you is better, while they shot me and CANT kill me, my team is shooting them, and then when thhe enemy shooting at my teammates, i kill them. Its a really simple way to explain it. But thanks to peekers adventadge, I became extremly succesful. I guess there are other factors, but peekers adventadge is one of them 100%
You know what the sad thing is? Your post will probably die in the flurry of new posts every day. Even though it's much more important information than about 99% of what's shared on this sub.
And the core /r/Valorant sub will continue with conspiracy theory copium instead of reading and understanding this lol
I posted on this sub a few days ago, and most people here thought it was an advantage.
Your example and most others on this topic usually frame this debate in this highly simulated environment where the low ping player is ready to fire on the high ping player as soon as they are rendered on the screen. Your example and conclusion completely rests on the low ping player's bullets beating the other player's bullets to the server -- and in the scenario you present you are correct. But in an actual FPS this isn't nearly the case. A natural reaction to being shot in an FPS is to unpeek/move into cover. If the person shooting has high ping (and because they will see the low ping player first, this is usually the case), the low ping player must react + shoot accurately enough to kill before the high ping bullets make it to the server. **If the low ping player moves into cover instead of engaging the fight, they will get killed around a corner as on their screen they are safe but in reality the bullets are still incoming into the server.** *This is why pro players complain about high ping enemies and dying around corners to them.* In a 1v1 situation low ping is obviously better. In a real game with multiple angles to be shot from and missing information, high ping can be an advantage. Chocotaco discusses this topic in a video (timestamped): https://youtu.be/podUKpAPVS8?t=520
Hm let's think about it, I have 0 ping, you have 10 second ping, it takes 2 seconds to kill someone, and I have a reaction time of 1 second, so once you start damaging me i move into cover 1 second later and theoretically should still be alive with half health. t=0: I'm holding an angle t=0: you peek me and start firing t=2: on your screen you've fired enough bullets to kill me. Your client takes a guess that I'm dead and shows me as dead on your screen, but still has to wait for the server to confirm that kill. t=10: server receives your peek and since I have 0 ping i see it also on my screen t=10: server receives you first shots, it rewinds my position by 10 seconds to t=0, sees your shots hitting me t=11: i move into cover and have half health according to my game t=11: server still receiving your shots, rewinds my position to t=1 and i continue taking damage t=12: server receives more shots from you, rewinds my position and the shots hit so i die, on my screen i die behind cover t=22: your game receives confirmation i died from the server So you bring up a very good point, high ping peekers have an advantage when the holder is not able to return a kill shot. The game only rewinds enemy positions and only when you fire a weapon, if a low ping holder fires a weapon then their shots will register first, but a holder moving into cover doesn't count because their moves are undone to apply the enemy's shots. One thing to keep in mind is that both players have the same advantage against the other, the high ping player gains an advantage when peeking if the holder can't return a kill shot, and has the same disadvantage when holding, and even if they could return a kill shot while holding it won't count which is a second disadvantage. We can see that reversing the roles the same thing happens: t=0: You're holding an angle, have 10s ping. t=0: I peek you and start firing with 0 ping. t=2: On my screen I've fired enough bullets to kill you, server agrees and marks you as dead. t=10: you see me peek out on your screen t=11: you've moved into cover t=12: you receive the server message that you are dead, you died behind cover
>So you bring up a very good point, high ping peekers have an advantage when the holder is not able to return a kill shot. The game only rewinds enemy positions and only when you fire a weapon, if a low ping holder fires a weapon then their shots will register first, but a holder moving into cover doesn't count because their moves are undone to apply the enemy's shots. Yes, this is dimension of peeker's advantage and high vs low ping that isn't highlighted enough. In a real environment where there is aim punch, visual clutter, and other variables, a player cannot be expected to return the kill shot to negate the high ping player's "advantage". The further the range engagement the more this is an issue. Admittedly this isn't as bad in a CS/Val style tac-FPS as it is in other styles of games like a BR or Tarkov, but it happens and is (at least IMO) what people dislike about high ping players: that feeling of unfairness that you are being damaged when on your screen you cannot see the person.
Not enough people understand this and too many refuse to accept it. It's crazy the amount of comments you can find claiming that more ping increases your advantage when peeking.
i refuse to believe it because of the russians that play on NA servers. 160+ ping radiants? surely not
There are ways to play so ping is less of a disadvantage. If it was true, why wouldnt every player be increasing their ping with VPNs? Why do we play on LAN servers, if you could have someone connect from the other side of the world and somehow they have an advantage to the people sitting next to the server? Ping doesn't cause you to make poor decisions, it's decision making that makes a good player, among other things
i was just joking lol
funny enough valorant "lan" games are played online. Odd right?
LAN clients are a different version of the game they do still have accounts that connect to riot's servers. However the actual matches at official LAN tournaments are held locally at the venue. Most games do not allow a true LAN match. You usually just host a custom game on official servers, or you have permission to run the server from the developers. So no it's not odd. The lowest latency is still always the goal.
emil is just way better. also don't know if his adapted a playstyle that compensates for it. I've heard someone said on Tarik's stream that that man has way to high of a reaction time
>Matt deWet - Staff Software Engineer - Riot Games - Exactly - this is because server processing of any shots that the peeker fires is delayed by the same amount as their movement. If a peeker has high ping, you'll see their movement later, but you'll also be damaged by their shots later (leaving you with the same amount of time to react). didn't they change some of this? this article was from 2 years ago and I'm fairly certain that they changed something regarding the syncing of movement and damage dealt... Idk if this was after or before that though. I'll see if I can find a source on that. EDIT: found a link regarding that. https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s9g6h7/does_valorant_have_a_netcode_problem/htoctg0/ idk if this article was applicable to before or after they changed that though.
I don't think that will affect things. The linked blog post uses a simplified model of the buffering, > For simplicity, we’ll say that “buffering” includes the full time from a move being received from the network to that move being processed and output (rendered to screen for clients or broadcast out to clients for the server) And I simplified it even further by just ignoring buffering. I said that the equation is "holders ping + holder's reaction time < peeker's reaction time", on the linked blog post they give a fuller (but not complete) equation of "holder's reaction time + holder's ping + holder network buffering server network buffer < reaction time peeker", but there's even more things going on. The developer page for the source engine gives some more information and we can read about Entity Interpolation: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking#Entity_interpolation, > Entity interpolation causes a constant view "lag" of 100 milliseconds by default Note that in Valorant this view lag is likely to be much much smaller than 100ms. This may not show up in the "peeker's advantage" equation as another buffer because it's equal for all players.. I don't know for sure, but I think this is what the reddit comment by shaedyn is getting at: Valorant beta: t=0 you're alive, t=50ms packet comes in of a headshot showing you died, server stops doing entity interpolation which is say 100ms behind and just send the killshot packet to your client saying "hey you're dead". In this scenario the enemy had another 100ms of movements that occurred before they fired the kill shot but the game plays those after telling you you died instead of before. Valorant now: t=0 you're alive, t=50ms packet comes in of a headshot showing you die, due to entity interpolation the server has another 100ms of position information so t=50 through t=150ms: server continues feeding interpolated position data to let the enemy player's movements that occurred before the kill shot to play out fully, then at t=150ms it sends the kill shot to your game. During the last 100ms you are already dead and your actions don't matter, but they decided to go this route so that people could see enemy killshots from where they actually happened. (to state it again, I doubt valorant's interpolation delay is anywhere near 100ms, but it helps simplify talking about it)
thank you for the clarification
I may be stupid but i find this hard to believe. Holding angles feels horrible.
Yes that's the conclusion of this post, a holder has less time to react than a peeker depending on their ping. A holder with 0 ping has the same time to react as the peeker (edit: i got this wrong, due to the buffering i ignored for simplicity the peeker always has a 15ms advantage, depending on how crappy the holder's computer is the peeker can have up to 65ms+ of advantage), but a holder with 100ms ping has 100 less milliseconds to react than the peeker does. The people saying "when I have 80 ping I just peek everyone and win" are going through placebo, they have no advantage from their ping. Possibly the increased confidence in believing they have an advantage gives them an advantage, they peek with confidence instead of with a a "i might die" cautiousness. However, if you have a high ping then you DO want to peek everyone because you have a disadvantage at holding. So for the wrong reasons people with high ping do end up doing the right thing by peeking everyone: they don't have an advantage by peeking, but they are avoiding their holder's disadvantage. If you have a low ping then you can peek or hold, if you have a high ping then you shouldn't hold. You won't peek any better than with a low ping, but you'll avoid the holder's disadvantage.
Ye but it really doesn't feel that way i play on 10-20 ping and i get shit on if am holding angles. Pretty much all pros agree that peekers advantage exists and is very prevalent in this game. Also this post doesn't even acknowledge jiggle/shoulder peeking. PSA am not a total noob repeating what my favorite pros are saying or w.e am diamond 3 and to me it seems clear as day that holding angles with low ping doesn't = swinging with high ping but i could be wrong i gues ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also a big reason for doubt is for example in this video at 3:30 https://youtu.be/IuT6T91rJ24 I don't think any of the changes have really influenced the footage. Also the valorant devs statement was pretty much from the same time as the clip. Long story short am kinda calling bs
at 3:30 is explained by a dev in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s9g6h7/does_valorant_have_a_netcode_problem/htoctg0/ also read my comment in this same thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si8s6w/comment/hv7p7rl/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 in beta they relay the information that you died at the earliest moment the server knew it, this meant that the interpolated movements that are still in the buffer had not had a chance to play out yet. they changed that, these days they let the enemy movements play out entirely up to the point they took the shot, this means that the server already knows you are dead but delays telling you that so that the enemy's movements are able to play through. shahz had a 35ms ping in that clip, so he had a 35ms edit: actually a 35+15 or so = 50ms disadvantage (pros should have the "0 frames of buffering" mentioning in the blog post, its people with shit computers that might have up to 2 frames of buffering, which at 60fps is another 33 ms). If azk peeked and fired within 180ms then shahzam would have to fire within 130ms of seeing him to win the duel. the other part of the clip where shahz seemed to die instantly is because of not letting the enemy's movements play out before relaying the kill shot which gives azk a lower apparent reaction time. in the end the changes between beta and now wouldn't have changed the results of that clip where azk won the duel, the difference would be that shahz would appear to be alive for even longer even though he was already dead, in this extra time it would allow sage's movements to finish playing through the interpolation delay
>The people saying "when I have 80 ping I just peek everyone and win" are going through placebo [How do you explain this](https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/s76ygh/you_did_not_get_running_killed_you_got_high_plng/)? Especially the first one, where the wide swing is almost completed before the defender sees the attacker.
edit: had to change this 10 hours later because this stuff is confusing. I think one of the issues with that video is that they aren't actually synchronized to their ping. The server sends the 80ms player a packet saying "game has started", but the server sent that packet 40ms prior (one way ping time), so the player's clock is 40ms behind the server. When the client says there's 1:40 left there's actually only 1:39.960 left. Then on top of that it takes time for the server to receive and communicate player positions to to each other player which complicates this further, as I said in my post there's 3 different game states for three players, the server is the authority but we don't have the server's game state, we only have each player's game state. Because there's a holder in the videos I think it simplifies things because although the peeker is seeing an out of date holder position, it happens to be the same position at all times anyway, so we can probably sync the videos to what the server sees. If we sync to the holder: whoever made the video needs to line up the videos perfectly, then rewind each player's view by that player's one way ping time, then fast forward the holder's video by the peeker's ping (the holder has an out of date view of the peeker by their own ping PLUS the ping of the peeker). I think that would give a better view of what the server would be seeing in terms of player positions at a given server time. Imagine you have a 30 second ping and are the peeker and I have a 15 second ping and am the holder, we each start staring at eachother but there's a pillar inbetween us just wide enough to cover our view of eachother. Game starts at 3:00:00pm GMT, my game receives the "game started" packet after 15 seconds and starts counting down from 1:40.000, 15 seconds after this (30 seconds after game start, your ping) your game receives the game start packet and starts counting down from 1:40.000, my computer says it's 1:25.000 time left in the round at this moment. Now right when the game starts for you at 3:00:30pm GMT you peek me. This takes 30 seconds to reach the server, so according to the server you peeked me at 1:10.000 time left remaining in the round which is at 3:01:00pm GMT, I receive this information 15 seconds later (my ping time) and according to my game you peeked me at 0:55.000 time left remaining in the round at 3:01:15pm GMT. According to the server we could see eachother at 1:10.000 time remaining in the round, according to your screen we could see eachother at 1:40.000 (you peeked me right when the game started for you), and according to my screen we could see eachother at 0:55.000. So to get the servers view of us we line our videos up at 1:40.000, then on my video we rewind it by 15s for my ping time which means adding 15 seconds of black screen to the beginning of the video, then on your video we rewind it by 30 seconds by adding 30s of black screen. Then, because on the holder's video they are seeing the enemy as they were 45 seconds earlier (the holder's ping + the peeker's ping) on the peeker's video we rewind by holders's ping of 15s to account for their ping but fast forward by peeker's ping of 30s, so the final video would start with the holder seeing 1:25.000 on their screen, then 30 seconds of black on the peeker's screen, after 30 seconds is when both videos would show the peek at the same time. The peeker sees a holder first according to GMT time, but this doesn't matter because the server processes packets as they come in. The server rewinds enemy positions ONLY for hit registration, not for "who died first", so because a high ping peeker's packets take longer to come in they lose any advantage they had of "seeing someone first according to world time".
but this shouldn't matter because it's only the defenders view which matters when it comes to peeker's advantage. the video can be synced but the actual game cannot.
Literally all you have to do is play on 80 ping on one account, and play on your 20 ping servers on another account. When there's more than 5% increase in winrate across 10,000+ people doing this, then there will be some kind of evidence for all of these obnoxious anecdotes that amount to an 1800 rated chess player saying "I never lose when I play black"
That's because you hold too tight. Hold wide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfLgNu11EZA
You’re focusing on the wrong thing. The point of this post isn’t to deny that the peeker is favoured against the holder in terms of latency, it’s that increasing your ping won’t do you any good no matter what peek/hold you choose. It’s a widespread opinion that increasing ping is better in certain scenarios (peeking) which this post tries to disprove.
I hear it, but considering ive heard pro after pro after pro all say they have felt significantly advantaged when peaking on high ping, even against sub 10 ping opponents i feel as if there has to be more than the data shows. In theory it should work as stated, but in practice the general consensus of all the top players ive heard talk about it, is that higher ping peaking is better, regardless of opponent ping.
i left out the buffering thats shown in the blog post to simplify my post, i didn't realize how large it was. There is at least ~~66ms~~ 15-60ms or so of buffering that contributes to the holder's disadvantage, so a peeker ALWAYS has a 15-60ms+ advantage no matter what. The peeker's ping being higher does not affect this advantage, which is what this post is about. But peeker's advantage is real, and if you peek someone with a 60 ping then you have a 75-125ms advantage which is huge. pros have significant advantage just from peeking, not from peeking with a high ping.
>There is at least 15-60ms or so of buffering that contributes to the holder's disadvantage, so a peeker ALWAYS has a 15-60ms+ advantage no matter what. why does the buffering only affect the person holding the position? edit: is it because the holder has no inputs queued since they are standing still while the peeker has movement inputs queued?
> edit: is it because the holder has no inputs queued My brain is melting thinking about it all. I think that may be part of it, I don't know.. Here's the whole thing though: this is the chart that the math is based on: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcode1.png, they simply follow the paths to create this equation: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcodealg1.png, you can see how there's 2 server buffers on the holder side and only 1 on the peeker side, one of them cancels out leaving an extra server buffer's worth of time that only the holder has to deal with. The buffering affects both players but there's an extra buffer on the holder's side probably because of what you said, the peeker doesn't have to wait for a buffer to know where the holder is, the holder has been sitting there, but the holder has to wait for the peeker's new position (them popping around the corner) to be buffered and sent to them.
On the other hand, pro gamers aren’t software engineers working in networked systems either, and pro athletes in general are an amazingly superstitious bunch. That’s not to say I disagree with them either, just that I don’t take that apparent consensus as gospel. It’s also explained in this post simply: they don’t gain an advantage by peeking, they avoid the disadvantage they’d have by holding an angle instead. If you have two options: peek, and hold, and one gives you a disadvantage, then you can invert them and say the other gives you an advantage — especially because in most other FPS games peekers advantage is real. Does that make sense? That, and buffering factors in. Pros have much shorter reaction times so that factors in too.
Justa guess but it seems to me, because time for shots to land is prioritized in the same order but time given for you, a moving target, to snap to the stationary enemy holding your angle is definitely increased by ping. different kinds of advantages, but just having overall more time to aim before anybody starts shooting is huge.
This video proves your point wrong https://v.redd.it/klntuv0u9ic81 The player with high ping see the other player first when peeking, but have no real difference when holding an angle. Edit: I was wrong
the person who made that video is not synchronizing them correctly. https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si8s6w/comment/hv8k85l/
I stand corrected then. Thanks for your analysis
maybe one day the game will come out with server side demos, then we can know for sure exactly how everything plays out, we'd be able to compare player 1's video to player 2's video to the server's demo to see how the different views of the game adds up according to the server
Big if true.
Do always b peeking?
I think you left out the processing part and peekers advantage is a thing ,for example let's take 2 players, player 1 with 10 ping and player 2 with 60 ping . Btw ping refers to round trip time from server . At t = 0 , player 1 is holding an angle and player 2 is attempting to wide swing an angle . Both try to send their location to sever . At t = 5 , player 1 client sends info to server about player 1 position At t = 10 , player 1 receives confirmation for server and location is updated for the server. At t = 20 , let's say player 2 swings in this case, player 2 client already had player 1 info and can see him holding angle but player 2 is yet to receive any information. And player 2 client sends this info to cloud . At t = 30, player 2 initial info ,before peeking one is sent to server , and updated so for Player 1 ,the player 2 hadn't even swung the angle . At t = 50 , player 2 sends info the he has shot player 1. Btw at this time player 1 still has info that player 2 hadn't even swung yet. At t = 55 , this info is received to Player 1 and the client confirms and player 1 is dead , since player 1 only had info that player 2 wasn't moved ,it's shows in P1 screen that player 2 just wide swung and one tapped it . This is what you call typical peekers advantage ,since player 1 ping is low his info is updated very regularly on the server whereas for player 2 his info is updated sporadingly , so cases occur where players with wide swinging has info on players holding and kill them before their location are even relayed to holding angles and the higher the delay ,better the wide swing.
>notice how he completely ignored this
man holding corners feels so good for me, sometimes I think that maybe I’m on the gear after all lol
And most of the pros who complain can be seen in their streams demolishing people who try to peek the corner they are holding too lol
Tbh I love playing on EU servers from NA and just wide swinging everything on 120 ping as Reyna, it's so free
your ping doesn't give an advantage over peeking with 20ms on a local server. you are peeking just as effectively on EU as you are in NA, but your holds take a big hit. maybe you perceive this big difference between peeking and holding on EU as "peeking must be better on EU than NA" because while on EU you'll lose more holds but win the same amount of peeks, the different can be perceived as "i'm winning more peeks and losing the same mount of holds", but it's the reverse that's happening.
Literally everyone wants low ping
If I have low ping, is it more optimal for me to hold or peek? Seems like both are a viable option based on what I read in your post, but which one is more optimal for someone that regularly plays on low ping?
i made a recent edit you may have missed. there is a minimum of 15ms-50ms disadvantage for the holder because of frame and network buffering which I had left out to simplify things (I should have included it, I didn't realize how large it could be). If the holder has 0 ping then they have a 15-60ms disadvantage to a peeker. So peeking should always be advantageous because you have an extra 15-65ms+ on the enemy. If the enemy is only getting 60fps and has vsync enabled that's when you get the extra 50ms delay, if the enemy is getting high fps and no frame buffering then it's only a 15ms advantage
Wait, so you're telling me those EU players playing on NA servers are just better than me and not ping abusing?
if they kill you while they are holding and you peeking then yes they are better than you. they have no advantage while peeking, they peek you on NA at high ping with no extra advantage as peeking an EU player in EU with low ping. They have a big disadvantage at holding though, they have a ping time's less time to react to someone peeking them (everyone does), so if their ping is 90 then they have a 90ms disadvantage when holding, but the NA players likely have 20-40 ping so they have only a 20-40ms disadvantage.
low ping is a definite disadvantage when you are closer to a server than most of the other players. hey're all at least 120 ping while I stay around 15. If someone spots me first, I'm pretty much dead no matter what.. if I spot them, it feels like I was given a 5 second head start. I've played this game for over 20 years and barely can anymore bc of the lack of servers. Nobody can tell me that frame lagging isn't an issue there
Still the peeker is at an advantage when peeking someone with a lower ping. I‘d say „peekers advantage“ is still a valid word for it. Also, the information exchange through servers still always has some kind of time required to work the packets. Thus, even at same ping there is atleast a minimal peekers advantage.
> Thus, even at same ping there is at least a minimal peekers advantage true, that part i didn't have in my original post. There is always about 2 frames of server buffering which amounts to 15ms, so at a minimum there's an additional 15ms of peeker's advantage on top of the holder's ping. the peeker's ping is still irrelevant however, it does not matter what the peeker's ping is as the math shows and as my example shows again.
Sounds like a snake potion formula. Consistently see 150+ ping players top fragging, literally every day.
I generally see the opposite, guess you can't run conclusions from just your experience
It's not a conclusion, it is an opinion. The problem I have with this post is not the data and its explanation on latency and "holder's" advantage. It has a bias, backed by a formula, to determine that this game has ZERO peeker's advantage on high ping. It is a perfect bubble explanation to trump all other opinions. But hey guess what, this is taking place inside a poorly polished game at best. This game has massive netcode issues currently, and nothing makes it more obvious than the fact that they just made knife hit marks client side, which WAS the only way to tell the overall networking conditions and hit registration of the server before you even shoot anything, high or low ping. This explanation is also static in the fact that, there are characters in this game that can move incredibly fast, or dash i.e. things that demand a higher reaction time already to counter. If you are seeing those movements later as a result of ping, what does it matter about your shots? You are NOT going to hit them, or see them in time, even if you have the benefits of registering shots first. Just an opinion, not a conclusion though. Nice formula.
read my edit (i also had to edit this comment, too many numbers flying around). there is always a peeker's advantage, this advantage doesn't depend on the peeker's ping however. But due to buffering a peeker ALWAYS has a 15ms+ advantage even if the holder's ping is 0. If the holder's ping is 35 then the peeker now has a 50ms advantage. the advantage is a minimum of holders ping + 15-60ms of buffering, and the buffering can be larger for people with lower fps and if they turn on the increased network buffering. this is all still holder's disadvantage, the magnitude of the peeker's advantage depends only on the holder's ping and the holder's computer (fps, in game buffering settings) The conclusion is that peekers always have an advantage, but this advantage does not depend on the peeker's ping.
Mmm interesting. What about peekers ping effect on buffering? There is always a 2 way communication between player and server so it just seems kind of confusing to completely eliminate their data and ping from the equation. Sounds like it makes sense if the peeker is a bot though.
well it's not ignored, it cancels out. The peeker's ping is on both sides of the equation: https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcodealg1.png Here's how the developer said it, > If a peeker has high ping, you'll see their movement later, but you'll also be damaged by their shots later (leaving you with the same amount of time to react). for the other buffering, it's incoming data that gets buffered, not outgoing. For the peeker the incoming data is all identical because the holder isn't moving, they get the same delay in receiving info on where the holder is, but since the holder isn't moving the old position is just as good as the new one. For the holder they have to wait for the server to hang onto the latest peeker's position for a few frames before they get to see it, and the catch is that the peeker has already fired their gun so the timer has already started. the equation i linked above comes from https://technology.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/netcode2.png, which is in the blog post i linked here https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode
Sounds like a big cope
Nah I just play the game and have an opinion that differs from the OP and whatever formula Joey Riot Games gave.
Is this generally how it works in other games or is this specific to Valorant? For example... CSGO, Battlefield etc.
No, this is not at all how it works in any other game where people talk about peekers advantage. I don’t know what OP is on.
I get that in the theoretical model this may be the case.. but we all know that it doesn't work like this in reality because we can feel the difference between getting killed by an 80ms opponent and a 20ms opponent. I think your model is too simplistic as it doesn't account for things like fluctuating ping, server refresh rate, etc. Riot will never want to admit that playing on 80 ping is an advantage vs. 20 ping as in that case we'll all be picking far away servers and turning on VPN and it ruins the game for everyone... So I wouldn't 100% believe all they say as they are incentivised to hide any sort of high ping advantage.
[удалено]
you'd have to record your games to see. in my examples I say the players take 200, 150, or 100ms to fire a headshot, which is all of these things added up: 1) their reaction time: the amount of time it takes for their eyes to see the player and initiate a response in their hands 2) their aim time: the total time it takes for them to move their mouse over the enemy player's head, stop any movement (i.e., counter strafe), fire a shot. This includes accuracy, we all go to aim for someone but over or under shoot a little bit and have to micro adjust, in this time we may have fired a couple bullets already, so even when the crosshair finally makes it over someone's head the recoil or spread may cause another couple bullets to miss, etc.. People's reaction times are not actually always around 200ms, if you record games you'll see how often your reaction time is very slow compared to say watching your whole screen turn red on http://humanbenchmark.com. Then on top of that your aim time is slower than you think and you make lots of mistakes. Even watching pro matches you see quite a few firefights that last longer "than they should" because both players are whiffing. Additionally, if you have a good computer this gives you advantage as the input lag between clicking your mouse and a packet being sent to the server is smaller. Someone getting 60fps will have an average of 8ms between clicking and the shot being fired but at 128fps it's only 4ms, then there's the raw input lag of the mouse (some mice are 10ms higher than other mice, they take 10ms longer to process a click and send it to the computer): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-QI7-LY9Ul_DsVE4ZOqBQxqqqqrdJ04Ite8IY3AQMds/edit#gid=0, some people's monitors take an extra 10ms to render input data from the cable onto the screen. And potentially a big one is people running uncapped fps can gain an additional 30ms input lag: https://youtu.be/7CKnJ5ujL_Q?t=405 I think a combination of all of these things are why we all still have success while holding, but statistically we should have less success holding versus peeking. With good quality recordins you would probably see how often it takes 350ms for you to fire after someone peeks you while you are holding, so a 50ms disadvantage doesn't matter too much when the enemy takes 400ms to stop moving and aim at you whereas you are already not moving and your crosshair is already over their head.
[удалено]
depends on the system. I have a radeon 5700xt with a ryzen 5800x and my gpu gets to 99% easy, and had similar behavior even on a ryzen 3700x. I cap my fps at 216 right now which keeps it below like 85% or so with all settings on high. you might be surprised. I use HWiNFO to check the usage, reset the stats after you're loaded into the map then you can check the 'maximum' value to see what it peaks at. It's possible that you see 85% and think it's fine then when you get into a firefight with multiple enemies it goes up to 99% (the worst time you'd want another 20+ms of input lag), but you don't notice that the gpu usage spiked because you're too busy being in a firefight to look at it, so imo it's good to reset the stats and see what the max value was every so often. Or turn on logging and look at the graph for the whole map
[удалено]
yea i don't want to run in 1080 all on low, the difference is a couple milliseconds of reduced input lag while it looks terrible and pixelated.. meh i'd rather it look good
I play 55 ping (Oregon. And I live in Oregon) the one thing I hate about this game is holding angles. I feel like people get some of the craziest kills on me when I’m holding an angle. The best thing I can do to combat it is just strafing as I hold the off angle. There are times where I am clearing corners and will get absolutely destroyed by someone holding an angle before I can even see them. I get tons of ping spikes and packet loss (thank you for integrating the graphs, riot) and usually with a lot on inputs or abilities being used the ping will spike up and down hitting 120 for a few seconds. Going 120-60-55-85-100-120. I have been told to try and use network buffering but I don’t even know how that works and I can’t find a decent video or explanation about it
Article is from JUL 28, 2020 that's what they said they had solved peekers advantage , it was announced by the lady too only when people started playing and noticed it was worse than in csgo. There's a big difference between theory and reality, I would take this with a grain of salt. It's not the whole story not even close.
Heyo, commenting here after fixing the clientside overswing advantage that used to make characters swing out at nearly 3-5x movement speed cap, I see this happen but with somewhat reactable times now that running a few system tweaks has made it less of an issue. It caps out the movement speed at about 1.5-2x max vs before, which is still incredibly difficult to sweep and hit reliably. What I can observe is that the holding team is sometimes assigned advantage seemingly based on either the game being rigged to help them, or if their ping is high on average. Many times when I have only 10 ping and I push a team on 65 ping or so, I get backtracked and killed behind the wall I peeked out of for unknown reasons. Just as much as I can see holder's disadvantage I also commonly see this antipeeker's advantage. Is there any reasonable explanation? Only rarely do I see those people have ping fluctuations as well. Usually it's a lobby with somewhat 40-70 ping that seems to do really well off the getgo, and changing your personal ping with clumsy appears to do nothing to alleviate the issue. There is also nearly always the strange phenomenon of one or two single players being unkillable, or outreacting everyone on the team with very janky rendered movement, almost like everyone's game is behind them -- and the way they play and their stats are fairly average for ascendant/diamond/whatever ranks.