• Greetings, Devil Dog! Welcome to the Call of Duty Forums. It looks like you're looking forward to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members and much more.

Tactical Gaming

Hit detection

I swear I sit there watching replay of dying, the dude crosses over me hits me with one bullet then after its by me its still dam showing hit marks, WTF this game. Gulog is fucking broke period with hit detection.
 

Tactical Gaming

Carlos

Owner
Staff member
Private
I swear I sit there watching replay of dying, the dude crosses over me hits me with one bullet then after its by me its still dam showing hit marks, WTF this game. Gulog is fucking broke period with hit detection.
My brother and I noticed that. We empty magazines at players and the person doesn't die, but shoots us with one or two bullets beamed at us, we die. This wasn't the case in Gunfight (well, not the same frequency.)
We see some of this in Multiplayer or Warzone.

On Ground War, we see this with snipers. Same with Warzone.
 

DizzyDemon

Recruit
It can also work in our favours sometime.

There have been occasions when I'm shooting at some guy and another runs into my path so I end up getting him instead.

Last night I ended up getting a quad kill and the last to die was the original guy I was going for.

Sent from my Huawei P20 Pro using Tapatalk
 

RDSXV

Recruit
they dont realize higher fps helps with rendering and plus the shots register properly. Pc players complain about aim assist lol what a joke. Pc has high fps, better graphics cards then console which gives them more picture options which allows them to see you from twice as far. It used to take skill to be good, now its all about the hardware, if your not using a scuf controller, gaming monitor or tv with top of the line internet your screwed, Everything is pay to win now these days.
 
they dont realize higher fps helps with rendering and plus the shots register properly. Pc players complain about aim assist lol what a joke. Pc has high fps, better graphics cards then console which gives them more picture options which allows them to see you from twice as far. It used to take skill to be good, now its all about the hardware, if your not using a scuf controller, gaming monitor or tv with top of the line internet your screwed, Everything is pay to win now these days.
FPS has NOTHING to do with registry of bullets I'm sorry to tell you that. Yes Fps does help to a certain extent . anything after that is eye candy in graphics. Smoothness etc yes. I get 110 fps graphics all way up. There is a dam hit detection problem i assure you.

they dont realize higher fps helps with rendering and plus the shots register properly. Pc players complain about aim assist lol what a joke. Pc has high fps, better graphics cards then console which gives them more picture options which allows them to see you from twice as far. It used to take skill to be good, now its all about the hardware, if your not using a scuf controller, gaming monitor or tv with top of the line internet your screwed, Everything is pay to win now these days.
I'm also talking about if your ass is running a game below fps where your lagging all over the place, That's your stupidity, The only way fps would matter in hit detection
 

DizzyDemon

Recruit
Pc players complain about aim assist lol what a joke.
I don't complain about aim assist, in the right hands it can be a helpful tool, yes, but it can also be a hindrance.

Imagine playing and running around a corner to see 2 opponents, 1 with his back to you and 1 facing you, aim assist will snap to the first hostile even if it means that the second can shoot you as he has a line of sight while the first has his back to you. A competent player will know to look past that first hostile drop the second then aim back at the first, it's a split-second decision that not all of us are good at making.

A less competent PC player will probably jump, jog the mouse and miss both players (guilty!! :oops: lol) and no fps advantage has stopped me from jumping when I find myself in a spot like that. A less competent console player won't adjust aim in response to the situation, so he might drop 1 and get dropped by the other.

A good player will asses the situation correctly and regardless of controller choice will win through and be ready for the next encounter, but sometimes poor hit detection might work against the better-skilled player and favor the weaker player allowing the player with his back turned to sweep round and win that battle.

Just respawn, adapt, and overcome.
 

RDSXV

Recruit
*or a pc
FPS has NOTHING to do with registry of bullets I'm sorry to tell you that. Yes Fps does help to a certain extent . anything after that is eye candy in graphics. Smoothness etc yes. I get 110 fps graphics all way up. There is a dam hit detection problem i assure you.


I'm also talking about if your ass is running a game below fps where your lagging all over the place, That's your stupidity, The only way fps would matter in hit detection
Thank you, im on xbox one capped at 60fps and i do lag from time to time, which means a player at higher fps is less likely to lag at the same moment which means you will hit your shots i wont, that sounds like a hit detection advantage
 

CMCFLYYY

Recruit
*or a pc

Thank you, im on xbox one capped at 60fps and i do lag from time to time, which means a player at higher fps is less likely to lag at the same moment which means you will hit your shots i wont, that sounds like a hit detection advantage
You literally don't have an understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Hit detection/latency issues are time-based - if you have a higher FPS that means if the hit detection is lagging by half a second, more frames are being "erased" in terms of which shots hit a target and which didn't. If you have lower FPS you are seeing less frames explaining to you what is not registering, but the same total time is being "erased" by the game having latency issues.

For example.

You are trying to duck behind cover and on your screen you got behind that wall with 1 HP left. The game says nope, that didn't happen, your XBox may be telling you that you got behind cover, but according to data transferred to the servers by you AND your opponent, you were actually still out in the open when that last bullet hit you and you died.

The time difference between you getting fully into cover on your XBox, and you still being "shootable" before you got into cover was 0.20 seconds. On your XBox at 60fps that means you saw 12 frames of action happen that didn't happen according to the server - it "erased" those frames when it showed you the kill-cam with you not being in cover yet. A PC player getting 144fps in that exact same situation would've seen 28 frames of action on their end that the server says "didn't happen" in the kill-cam.

Just because the PC player saw more frames - 28 to 12 - doesn't mean they saw more "time" than the XBox player did. The same amount of time was "erased", the PC player just saw more frames of that same time period.

This is also why peeker's advantage exists. When you are the first to react according to the server, by popping out of cover to shoot at an enemy, while the data of you moving out of cover and firing is being transmitted to the server and to the enemy's system, latency is creating a built in handicap against the enemy reacting to you. That same 0.2 second latency issue is causing the enemy player's reaction, firing back at you, to be delayed in terms of when it's received by the server compared to your data that was received and confirmed first, so you wind up with the kill even though on their screen you both starting firing at the same time.

Now peeker's advantage is theoretically lessened if you have higher FPS. Obviously if what's happening on your screen is 0.2 seconds behind what's actually happening according to the server, then it would be ideal to get that delayed information updated as fast as physically possible. But at this point we're talking about the difference between 1 frame of 60fps and 144fps - that's around 1/100th of a second. If you have a 144fps capable PC, you are going to see that enemy move out 1/100th of a second quicker. The average reaction time is 0.2 seconds, or 20/100ths.

If you think 0.01 seconds of time lost to frame rate is the reason you're dying, you have issues. Latency and hit detection issues are a thing.
 

DizzyDemon

Recruit
*or a pc

Thank you, im on xbox one capped at 60fps and i do lag from time to time, which means a player at higher fps is less likely to lag at the same moment which means you will hit your shots i wont, that sounds like a hit detection advantage
I wouldn't class myself as an expert in these matters, I know enough to get things wrong and occasionally nearly right, but here is my take on the hit detection vs fps debate, I have formed this opinion after reading Huntnwabits post above, in it Huntnwabits said:

FPS has NOTHING to do with registry of bullets
After giving that some thought this is what occurred to me, we are using our consoles or PCs to run the game software but the matches we play are being hosted on a server and it is the server that decides who managed to hit who first and calculate the amount of damage done. If I am correct in my assumption then all talk of fps is no longer relevant as the server most likely doesn't even have a display, which means it runs at 0 fps.

If you Console or PC drops below 60 fps then it won't interfere with hit detection but it might introduce input lag where the screen updates take longer as a result of the fps drop.
 
You literally don't have an understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Hit detection/latency issues are time-based - if you have a higher FPS that means if the hit detection is lagging by half a second, more frames are being "erased" in terms of which shots hit a target and which didn't. If you have lower FPS you are seeing less frames explaining to you what is not registering, but the same total time is being "erased" by the game having latency issues.

For example.

You are trying to duck behind cover and on your screen you got behind that wall with 1 HP left. The game says nope, that didn't happen, your XBox may be telling you that you got behind cover, but according to data transferred to the servers by you AND your opponent, you were actually still out in the open when that last bullet hit you and you died.

The time difference between you getting fully into cover on your XBox, and you still being "shootable" before you got into cover was 0.20 seconds. On your XBox at 60fps that means you saw 12 frames of action happen that didn't happen according to the server - it "erased" those frames when it showed you the kill-cam with you not being in cover yet. A PC player getting 144fps in that exact same situation would've seen 28 frames of action on their end that the server says "didn't happen" in the kill-cam.

Just because the PC player saw more frames - 28 to 12 - doesn't mean they saw more "time" than the XBox player did. The same amount of time was "erased", the PC player just saw more frames of that same time period.

This is also why peeker's advantage exists. When you are the first to react according to the server, by popping out of cover to shoot at an enemy, while the data of you moving out of cover and firing is being transmitted to the server and to the enemy's system, latency is creating a built in handicap against the enemy reacting to you. That same 0.2 second latency issue is causing the enemy player's reaction, firing back at you, to be delayed in terms of when it's received by the server compared to your data that was received and confirmed first, so you wind up with the kill even though on their screen you both starting firing at the same time.

Now peeker's advantage is theoretically lessened if you have higher FPS. Obviously if what's happening on your screen is 0.2 seconds behind what's actually happening according to the server, then it would be ideal to get that delayed information updated as fast as physically possible. But at this point we're talking about the difference between 1 frame of 60fps and 144fps - that's around 1/100th of a second. If you have a 144fps capable PC, you are going to see that enemy move out 1/100th of a second quicker. The average reaction time is 0.2 seconds, or 20/100ths.

If you think 0.01 seconds of time lost to frame rate is the reason you're dying, you have issues. Latency and hit detection issues are a thing.
Ive been in PC gaming since 1998, I know wtf im talking about, all your talking about is 60 mhz screen and a 144 mhz screen YES that is latency , WITCH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FPS (GRAPHICS CARD).....Please go back and learn more about what you THINK your learning in videos about pc gaming.

Ive been in PC gaming since 1998, I know wtf im talking about, all your talking about is 60 mhz screen and a 144 mhz screen YES that is latency , WITCH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FPS (GRAPHICS CARD).....Please go back and learn more about what you THINK your learning in videos about pc gaming.
sorry that was to other guy dizzy demon i miss read yours to his :)

So it looks like we all agree now. :) sorry cmcflyy
 

Carlos

Owner
Staff member
Private
I understood everything that was said by @CMCFLYYY. Excellent post, those are the kinds of posts I've wanted on this site for years. You guys are incredible people, posting in-depth posts and being positive to each other. Likes all around.
 

RDSXV

Recruit
You literally don't have an understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Hit detection/latency issues are time-based - if you have a higher FPS that means if the hit detection is lagging by half a second, more frames are being "erased" in terms of which shots hit a target and which didn't. If you have lower FPS you are seeing less frames explaining to you what is not registering, but the same total time is being "erased" by the game having latency issues.

For example.

You are trying to duck behind cover and on your screen you got behind that wall with 1 HP left. The game says nope, that didn't happen, your XBox may be telling you that you got behind cover, but according to data transferred to the servers by you AND your opponent, you were actually still out in the open when that last bullet hit you and you died.

The time difference between you getting fully into cover on your XBox, and you still being "shootable" before you got into cover was 0.20 seconds. On your XBox at 60fps that means you saw 12 frames of action happen that didn't happen according to the server - it "erased" those frames when it showed you the kill-cam with you not being in cover yet. A PC player getting 144fps in that exact same situation would've seen 28 frames of action on their end that the server says "didn't happen" in the kill-cam.

Just because the PC player saw more frames - 28 to 12 - doesn't mean they saw more "time" than the XBox player did. The same amount of time was "erased", the PC player just saw more frames of that same time period.

This is also why peeker's advantage exists. When you are the first to react according to the server, by popping out of cover to shoot at an enemy, while the data of you moving out of cover and firing is being transmitted to the server and to the enemy's system, latency is creating a built in handicap against the enemy reacting to you. That same 0.2 second latency issue is causing the enemy player's reaction, firing back at you, to be delayed in terms of when it's received by the server compared to your data that was received and confirmed first, so you wind up with the kill even though on their screen you both starting firing at the same time.

Now peeker's advantage is theoretically lessened if you have higher FPS. Obviously if what's happening on your screen is 0.2 seconds behind what's actually happening according to the server, then it would be ideal to get that delayed information updated as fast as physically possible. But at this point we're talking about the difference between 1 frame of 60fps and 144fps - that's around 1/100th of a second. If you have a 144fps capable PC, you are going to see that enemy move out 1/100th of a second quicker. The average reaction time is 0.2 seconds, or 20/100ths.

If you think 0.01 seconds of time lost to frame rate is the reason you're dying, you have issues. Latency and hit detection issues are a thing.
If are having latency problems it could easily be your monitor or tv and your internet connection creating this problem as well, its not just the game. It all goes hand in hand with your overall experience with the game. Personally Im not having any issues with latency or hit markers.
You literally don't have an understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Hit detection/latency issues are time-based - if you have a higher FPS that means if the hit detection is lagging by half a second, more frames are being "erased" in terms of which shots hit a target and which didn't. If you have lower FPS you are seeing less frames explaining to you what is not registering, but the same total time is being "erased" by the game having latency issues.

For example.

You are trying to duck behind cover and on your screen you got behind that wall with 1 HP left. The game says nope, that didn't happen, your XBox may be telling you that you got behind cover, but according to data transferred to the servers by you AND your opponent, you were actually still out in the open when that last bullet hit you and you died.

The time difference between you getting fully into cover on your XBox, and you still being "shootable" before you got into cover was 0.20 seconds. On your XBox at 60fps that means you saw 12 frames of action happen that didn't happen according to the server - it "erased" those frames when it showed you the kill-cam with you not being in cover yet. A PC player getting 144fps in that exact same situation would've seen 28 frames of action on their end that the server says "didn't happen" in the kill-cam.

Just because the PC player saw more frames - 28 to 12 - doesn't mean they saw more "time" than the XBox player did. The same amount of time was "erased", the PC player just saw more frames of that same time period.

This is also why peeker's advantage exists. When you are the first to react according to the server, by popping out of cover to shoot at an enemy, while the data of you moving out of cover and firing is being transmitted to the server and to the enemy's system, latency is creating a built in handicap against the enemy reacting to you. That same 0.2 second latency issue is causing the enemy player's reaction, firing back at you, to be delayed in terms of when it's received by the server compared to your data that was received and confirmed first, so you wind up with the kill even though on their screen you both starting firing at the same time.

Now peeker's advantage is theoretically lessened if you have higher FPS. Obviously if what's happening on your screen is 0.2 seconds behind what's actually happening according to the server, then it would be ideal to get that delayed information updated as fast as physically possible. But at this point we're talking about the difference between 1 frame of 60fps and 144fps - that's around 1/100th of a second. If you have a 144fps capable PC, you are going to see that enemy move out 1/100th of a second quicker. The average reaction time is 0.2 seconds, or 20/100ths.

If you think 0.01 seconds of time lost to frame rate is the reason you're dying, you have issues. Latency and hit detection issues are a thing.
Im glad people post videos on youtube playing both platforms basically showing the difference between both. Its funny on pc they can beam players flying in breaking their armor and kill them before landing from 300m away but can't seem to even break the armor on console. Explain why that is? Tell me its not the fps helping you hit your shots. Yes the graphics card is what allows to get higher fps, if your pc can run 144fps then you would need a monitor with 144hz to process the information correctly. 144frames per second compared to 60fps means your getting the information sooner then the other. These games are designed on a pc which means the game or server is most likely to favor the higher fps running hardware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im glad people post videos on youtube playing both platforms basically showing the difference between both. Its funny on pc they can beam players flying in breaking their armor and kill them before landing from 300m away but can't seem to even break the armor on console. Explain why that is? Tell me its not the fps helping you hit your shots. Yes the graphics card is what allows to get higher fps, if your pc can run 144fps then you would need a monitor with 144hz to process the information correctly. 144frames per second compared to 60fps means your getting the information sooner then the other. These games are designed on a pc which means the game or server is most likely to favor the higher fps running hardware.
I Thought we been over this. FPS does NOT have ANYTHING to do with hit detection. If you don't under stand by now, I don't know what to tell you.

Im glad people post videos on youtube playing both platforms basically showing the difference between both. Its funny on pc they can beam players flying in breaking their armor and kill them before landing from 300m away but can't seem to even break the armor on console. Explain why that is? Tell me its not the fps helping you hit your shots. Yes the graphics card is what allows to get higher fps, if your pc can run 144fps then you would need a monitor with 144hz to process the information correctly. 144frames per second compared to 60fps means your getting the information sooner then the other. These games are designed on a pc which means the game or server is most likely to favor the higher fps running hardware.
ALL your talking about is latency man due to your mhz on moniters, Nothing on that gives you hit mark, just like .0010 frames faster in 144 than 60 mhz SO SLIGHT OF a difference , yes you might see a little of his gun or hand peeking a corner on a 144 before you would on a 60 mhz.
 

DizzyDemon

Recruit
ALL your talking about is latency man due to your mhz on moniters, Nothing on that gives you hit mark, just like .0010 frames faster in 144 than 60 mhz SO SLIGHT OF a difference , yes you might see a little of his gun or hand peeking a corner on a 144 before you would on a 60 mhz.
Yes, ultimately the judge's decision (or server's in this case) is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
 

CMCFLYYY

Recruit
If are having latency problems it could easily be your monitor or tv and your internet connection creating this problem as well, its not just the game. It all goes hand in hand with your overall experience with the game. Personally Im not having any issues with latency or hit markers.

Im glad people post videos on youtube playing both platforms basically showing the difference between both. Its funny on pc they can beam players flying in breaking their armor and kill them before landing from 300m away but can't seem to even break the armor on console. Explain why that is? Tell me its not the fps helping you hit your shots. Yes the graphics card is what allows to get higher fps, if your pc can run 144fps then you would need a monitor with 144hz to process the information correctly. 144frames per second compared to 60fps means your getting the information sooner then the other. These games are designed on a pc which means the game or server is most likely to favor the higher fps running hardware.
I just addressed all this above. You do realize how small the time difference is between a 144hz monitor and a 60hz TV updating? The average reaction time is 0.20-0.25 seconds - 20-25/100ths of a second. A 60hz monitor refreshes every 1.5/100ths of a second, meaning when someone peeks around the corner at you, your XBox has rendered 12-15 frames before you were even able to physically react to the first frame of peeking.

A PC player sees more than double those frames, 28-32, before they can react to the first frame. But again the point here is how fast is the first frame update happening, which triggers your reaction time. We're talking a difference of less than 1/100th of a second between 144hz and 60hz to render the first frame. Your reaction time is 20-25/100ths, and this 144hz "advantage" is worth only 3-4% of that. Again if this is why you think you're getting killed, you're wrong.

Also as far as these vids showing PC players have an easier time beaming targets at 300m, I'd love to see them. I imagine there are plenty of uncontrolled variables, mainly the skill of the player involved. I would imagine that people aren't going to be equally skilled on both PC and console. If you take a PC Warzone streamer and ask him to play with a controller on a TV, I'm betting he isn't going to beam players as well because he doesn't have 10+ years of experience like he does with a mouse & keyboard on PC. And likewise, I bet if you took a console player with insanely good stick skills and plopped him in front of a PC and asked him to use a mouse with no aim assist, his performance would suffer as well. How many players out there are equally skilled with both a mouse and a controller?

And to address your first point. Yes monitor/tvs have lag - input lag. They aren't delaying any information you're seeing on screen, they just produce a delay between your action being "transmitted" and rendered on screen. So this has nothing to do with latency.

Your internet connection is definitely a factor, but so is the enemy you're interacting with. Remember with server-hosted games, when you shoot at someone your system is sending info about whether you hit or not to the server, and then the server is sending that to the enemy, and then it has to send their info back to the server and then to you. So it doesn't matter sometimes if your XBox thinks you hit someone and that's what it's playing on your screen, because that's not what the server thinks happened after processing info from both players.

There's a long game of telephone being played here, and network speeds can delay parts of that process. Again this is where peeker's advantage comes from. When someone pops out of cover to shoot at you, even though you react quickly and start shooting back at the exact same time he does on your screen, you're already at a disadvantage because his information was sent to the server first and then to you in order for you to see it. So it might seem like you started firing exactly when he did, but in reality there's a 0.2 or more built in latency where his actions are being routed through a server to you, so every response you make to him is operated on a built in delay. So some of the bullets you fire back are going to be "erased" by the server because you were delayed and the enemy already killed you. This is exactly the same premise I went over above about ducking into cover.
 

RDSXV

Recruit
At this point I dont understand what your trying saying, You start by saying fps doesn't matter and then go on to explain how it does? Im confused
 

CMCFLYYY

Recruit
At this point I dont understand what your trying saying, You start by saying fps doesn't matter and then go on to explain how it does? Im confused
I said it matters by about 3-4% of your reaction time, which is a pitifully small amount. You are not getting killed because your frame rate is lower. My main point is, latency issues exist in server-hosted games because of the telephone-style communication between player->server->enemy->server->player. This is why you die after you thought you got behind that cover and why the kill cam looks different. This is why when you after you thought you got enough shots into him, and the kill cam shows you not firing at all. Latency and hit detection are a thing that exist in this like, like lots of others - some games handle it better than others in the background. But to try and deny that it exists and blame it on FPS is asinine.
 

Carlos

Owner
Staff member
Private
At this point I dont understand what your trying saying, You start by saying fps doesn't matter and then go on to explain how it does? Im confused
Pay attention to what he's saying. Framerates don't really matter. It has multiple layers of problems.

You press a button, it goes, but on-screen the action is delayed because of the screen's input lag. Then you also have to realize that there's also syncing issues between the game you're playing and the server. And the connection between YOU and your opponent.

Microsoft is trying to eliminate this input lag with Xbox Series X, Sony is doing the same with PS5.

The best way to see this in real time is livestreams, and livestreaming. Just this morning I saw a livestream (Summer Fest), and it lagged... I could see the image, and frames, but the audio was delayed by seconds.
 

RDSXV

Recruit
Pay attention to what he's saying. Framerates don't really matter. It has multiple layers of problems.

You press a button, it goes, but on-screen the action is delayed because of the screen's input lag. Then you also have to realize that there's also syncing issues between the game you're playing and the server. And the connection between YOU and your opponent.

Microsoft is trying to eliminate this input lag with Xbox Series X, Sony is doing the same with PS5.

The best way to see this in real time is livestreams, and livestreaming. Just this morning I saw a livestream (Summer Fest), and it lagged... I could see the image, and frames, but the audio was delayed by seconds.
Im the only xbox player in this post, the other players are on pc I believe and Im not the one complaining about anything. I was just pointing something out. Stop putting all the blame on the game it could easily be your hardware giving you those problems period. You guys make it sound like this the game the planet that lags, what are you guys new to gaming, seriously? Grow up..

*"you guys make it sound like this is the only game on the planet that lags"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Like CODForums!

Advertisements

Top