JT235 wrote:

 

djam wrote:

 

Didn't read the replies but you are wrong.

 

When I'm the host and this happens, how the hell could the other person have a better connection to the host (me) than me (the host). It's lag compensation, in both scenarios you explained.

 

The game doesn't take up much bandwidth. It's about the latency.

 

I like this comment simply because of the bold statement. He is absolutely correct. They put in code so that the host wouldn't have an advantage that people cried about in MW2 and this is the result. They overcompensated and this is why I dumbed down my PS3 connection so I am NOT host! We noticed this in BLOPS too.

 

I also wonder why almost all connections show 4 bars? Did they default that for everyone so no one feels bad that they have a crap connection? Or are there limits so broad that it makes everyone look like they have a good connection? I have noticed a couple of connections lately that were 2 and 3 but this was after the patch.

Trust me: they didn't "put in code so that the host wouldn't have an advantage that people cried about in MW2". Being host on the hacksbachs360 runs much better than on the PS3 port.

As I stated in the original post, this is my hypothesis for why the host seems to have a disadvantage: the game is simply not streamlined enough to run on the PS3 at the moment. Any programmer knows that writing a program for one system and then porting it over to another will take up much more resources than just writing the program for the second system in the first place.

This is the reason for menu lag, for xmb lag when in game and other lags that aren't affected by internet speed. It's a combination of the lack of memory (512 mb) and the resource hog that is MW3 on PS3.

Lag is not only caused by latency. It can also be caused by the actual hardware - in this case the PS3. I'm not stating that the PS3 is unable to run this game. I'm stating that with the design flaws and memory allocation issues when porting the game from the XBox version, there were probably corners cut with distributing memory to different systems. That combined with the inclusion of things such as theater, elite among others is my guess as to why the host suffers.

My original post (as I have stated several time and in fact edited in) is for situations where two user-side players (aka non-host) face off. Those are facts. This post is my prediction as to why the host is negatively affected.

Look guys. I'm tired of stating the same thing over and over again about the host issues vs. lag compensation.

Here's another analogy for you guys:

Someone's car heater breaks down. The guy blames the speed regulator in his engine. Does this make sense?

While I do agree that being a host is a disadvantage in this game, it is not caused by lag compensation. Lag compensation "boosts" connections for laggy players; it does not slow down good connections. Blaming lag compensation for the lag for the host is like blaming the engine of a car for the broken ventilation system.

JT235 wrote:

 

You realize the XBOX only has 512MB of RAM too, right? The difference is XBOX has 512MB dynamic where PS3 has 256MB Video and 256MB System. The PS3 is more than capable of handling EVERYTHING MW3 throws at it, spec wise, but bad coding cannot be fixed by any hardware.

 

I have said all along there were other issues, memory leaks, bad optimization among other things but yes there are severe connection issues with this game and yes they made adjustments so the hosts doesn't have the advantage they had in MW2. If you cannot see that then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The fact that people could pop in MW2 and see their NAT as Open but BLOPS and MW3 (the only games that do this) show as strict or moderate should tell you something. I have no issues with Socom, comparitively Socom 4 runs SO MUCH smoother online than MW3 also says something considering they are BOTH P2P with a master (host).

 

I have never seen online issues like MW3, whether it is video stutter (also happens in spec ops split screen), to clear issues of connection times being 1-2 seconds off (unacceptable for an online shooter) it amazes me that people defend it. With all the hype of Elite and new features this really is an epic fail.

 

BTW I am not blaming lag compensation, I am blaming bad code overall but this is within those parameters. What I am not blaming is others connections unless they are Mexican.

So we're in agreement. Like I stated before, I blame the bad coding and corner cutting when porting for all the issues for the host. 512 mb just isn't enough to handle the inefficient memory allocation.

I'm not defending the game. In fact if you stick around the forums, you'll see that I'm one of the most vocal critics of this game. What I am trying to do with this thread is to clear up the air about lag compensation and what it is actually capable of doing.