PDA

View Full Version : Peacekeeper still the worst on console - light spam



Mirage6201
08-31-2017, 12:41 AM
Peacekeeper lights are still a problem on console. Ubisoft hasn't fixed it. I think everyone just gave up on it. Nothing worse than a level 30 Pk spamming lights.

PrimaGoosa
08-31-2017, 12:44 AM
This is a question that I'm sure has been answered, but what is the difference on console that makes it vary so greatly from PC?

ChampionRuby50g
08-31-2017, 12:53 AM
This is a question that I'm sure has been answered, but what is the difference on console that makes it vary so greatly from PC?

Console is locked at 30fps but PC gets 60fps. At least I'm pretty sure it's 60fps. The Frames per second
Makes all the difference in the world.

Mirage6201
08-31-2017, 01:06 AM
U get half the animation makes its like closing your eyes half the time. They never heavy only light zone.

Alustar.
08-31-2017, 01:08 AM
It's the fact that your computer is most likely hard wired in, from the router to the interface controls, so latency from inputs is faster, combined that with better networking speeds.

The fps has little to do with this as that's simply how smooth an animation runs between keyframes. A 500ms attack will execute in 500ms regardless, wether clocked at 30fps or 60

PrimaGoosa
08-31-2017, 01:20 AM
I appreciate the responses. I'm not 100% sure of the technical math behind the experience and precisely how much it impacts, but I can believe it plays a role.

Also, I play on PC with a wireless mouse on a laptop over Wi-Fi, so I'm not exactly getting the most hard-wired experience myself. But my FPS is baller, so I have that going for me.

Mirage6201
08-31-2017, 01:27 AM
Pk animations are so fast that you would think it does matter. Add in input lag from tv.

Trbevis
08-31-2017, 01:30 AM
Fully agree, its rank being against a peacekeeper, hate it

Mirage6201
08-31-2017, 01:37 AM
U have to guess to block. That's a problem.

UbiNoty
08-31-2017, 01:50 AM
I've heard that using a monitor can help if you're on console to further minimize lag. So that might be something to consider.

And we're aware of the concerns with light attack + assassins especially on console and are trying to find ways to alleviate lag and perception issues that may be exacerbating the issue.

Sneaky-Patches
08-31-2017, 01:51 AM
1) FPS makes a difference in the sense that someone with 130fps on PC will probably see the hit indicator before someone with 30FPS on console does, just because the more FPS, the more precise the indicator will come up. Maybe like a 2fps advantage sometimes, but the actual time window should be the same.
Also you could argue it's easier to judge parries when the whole game feels much much smoother.

2) more people on PC would play with a wired internet connection, whereas tons of people still just use wifi on console due to convenience and lack of knowledge on these aspects.

3) probably the biggest difference. Almost everyone on PC uses monitors that have 0 - 10 millisecond (I think that's the measurement) response times, meaning your monitor accurately represents what the game is showing you with virtually no delay. Whereas almost everyone on console plays on TVs that generally have response times at around 60ms - 150ms or maybe even more...

4) PCs may just generally run the game a little snappier that console.

5) the PS4 pro seems to run this game like crap, whereas the regular PS4 runs it better for some odd reason.

6) having a wired controller may also reduce the response time a little too.

It all adds up..

Edit: if you are looking to reduce all this lag on console, make sure you have a wired internet connection (maybe upgrade to broadband if you don't have it), either get a very low ms PC monitor to play on OR see if your TV has a "game mode" setting.

Knight_Raime
08-31-2017, 02:02 AM
This is a question that I'm sure has been answered, but what is the difference on console that makes it vary so greatly from PC?

It's mostly due to the fact that most console gamers are playing on a tv rather than a monitor. Tv's don't usually have what is considered acceptable response time for gaming.
30fps has an impact as well but not nearly as much as response time does.

A decent monitor that fixes the response time is like 120$-150$ USD.
60 fps lets you see the attack in more detail which is helpful. But if the response time to you seeing the attack is still delayed by a bit you're reaction time is still going to suffer.

Herbstlicht
08-31-2017, 06:54 AM
I've heard that using a monitor can help if you're on console to further minimize lag. So that might be something to consider.

And we're aware of the concerns with light attack + assassins especially on console and are trying to find ways to alleviate lag and perception issues that may be exacerbating the issue.

Wow, thats lovely. If some slight timing adjustments, specially for the indicators would be possible or the game could be made more responsive on consoles, it would be real amazing :-)

bmason1000
08-31-2017, 07:17 AM
When my wife and i moved a few months back, we wanted a new tv. I dropped 500 bucks on a 4k ultra hd television with 12ms delay, moved my router to hardwire internet and bought a long a** chord for my controller alllll because of this game. I can now react block pk pretty often. Not always because my reactions are seriously kinda s*** for video games anyway haha. However, i felt the difference the first time i played. Much, much more responsive.

Knight_Raime
08-31-2017, 10:03 AM
Wow, thats lovely. If some slight timing adjustments, specially for the indicators would be possible or the game could be made more responsive on consoles, it would be real amazing :-)

The response time has absolutely nothing to do with console. that's entirely on whatever device you are using to view your game.

ChampionRuby50g
08-31-2017, 10:24 AM
I started "borrowing" my Mum's monitor when shes at work, and even though its a ****ty old desktop one, it is better than my TV for sure. Can't wait for the Xbox X to come out right after my birthday, will get a 4k Monitor with lowest refresh rate possible with it.

Herbstlicht
08-31-2017, 12:01 PM
The response time has absolutely nothing to do with console. that's entirely on whatever device you are using to view your game.

Oh dude, wherever some sort of hardware and devices are deployed, some latency issues are created. Even the corded controller still needs time to communicate.
But not going to drive into details for you. In short: the best possible PC setup (say 144hz to 144 fps synced at 1ms display lag with highest end periphals) will always beat the best possible console setup. If the devs find some ways to make the gap smaller, you could be happy too. The more responsive and fair to react a game feels, the more people will like it. And though fighting games may still be niche, I see For Honor actually trying and succeeding to appeal to a broader audience.

Platforms though, as well as platform awareness, seems to become increasingly important. Console players mostly shell out more cash for a game then PC players - we don't get those many sales. So one will always think twice (or triple) when purchasing something that may not be optimized for one given platform.

Be it as it may though, I will educate you on one more thing. Some fighters - or shooters - are extremely responsive and ultra fast when it comes to registering hits for example. Others are not. I do not have the tech to test the responsiveness in For Honor, but with almost everything, there might be room to improve upon. And when the devs are lookijg into how to do so, it's actually amazing.
So quit your useless nitpicking, getting the feeling you only responded because it was me who wrote up this post.

Knight_Raime
08-31-2017, 07:21 PM
Oh dude, wherever some sort of hardware and devices are deployed, some latency issues are created. Even the corded controller still needs time to communicate.
But not going to drive into details for you. In short: the best possible PC setup (say 144hz to 144 fps synced at 1ms display lag with highest end periphals) will always beat the best possible console setup. If the devs find some ways to make the gap smaller, you could be happy too. The more responsive and fair to react a game feels, the more people will like it. And though fighting games may still be niche, I see For Honor actually trying and succeeding to appeal to a broader audience.

Platforms though, as well as platform awareness, seems to become increasingly important. Console players mostly shell out more cash for a game then PC players - we don't get those many sales. So one will always think twice (or triple) when purchasing something that may not be optimized for one given platform.

Be it as it may though, I will educate you on one more thing. Some fighters - or shooters - are extremely responsive and ultra fast when it comes to registering hits for example. Others are not. I do not have the tech to test the responsiveness in For Honor, but with almost everything, there might be room to improve upon. And when the devs are lookijg into how to do so, it's actually amazing.
So quit your useless nitpicking, getting the feeling you only responded because it was me who wrote up this post.

It's not nitpicking. If there really was a huge delay going on with the indicators between console and pc it would have been found by now by those who have made the switch from console to pc or pc players trying on console. Yes there always is some delay regardless of what you use. Calling me on nitpicking when you said that? Ironic. Am I saying there is no way for them to improve things? No. You stating that there is always room to improve is another nitpicky thing.

All i'm telling you is that the response time with console hardware is "fine" and that a patch they push out wouldn't make it amazingly better. Where as switching your tv to a tv with a better response time or a monitor with a better response time is going to be a far bigger improvement. Also cute that you think i'm specifically following you. The only thing I have ear marked about you is that you blame almost everything on console like it's a barely passable game. That has no influence what so ever on my posting habits.

I'm not the smartest guy nor am I amazing at for honor. But I react to 90% of the light attacks in this game consistently when lights are supposedly damn near impossible to see let alone block/parry according to people who hide behind the console "argument." You and others still also hide behind the speed of an attack as "point" in a debate about balance. When it's more on the animation itself. If speed was the deciding factor half the lights in the game would be impossible by those standards since almost all lights are in the 500-700ms range.

Lastly I don't appreciate you talking down to me. I could have worded my original response to a better spot like I did in this reply but that doesn't give you the okay to treat me like i'm ignorant. Especially when I used to reply to you with wordy replies about animations and speeds. To which if I recall have been ignored most of the time. I can and have accepted that for a casual gamer or a lesser skilled person that being on console is a hinderance in performance. However I take issue when that becomes the primary source of blame. And it's only because again, i'm not an amazing player by any stretch but I don't struggle at all and I'm using roughly the same setup most console players should be.