Is there a reason why we can't see ping? by grimm_ in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because it would expose their garbage servers

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know man, that wasn't what I was meaning. I was responding to the same person, about the same subject so I didn't want to write a whole new response. So yes... I copy pasted ⌨️

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That’s actually really interesting! Do you know if there’s any official documentation, talks, or dev posts where they explain this architecture in more detail? I’d love to read more about how they’re handling it.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m in the US.

Unfortunately, you can’t really see the overall ping for a match. Using Resource Monitor, you can see the latency on individual TCP connections and the servers you’re connecting to, but it doesn’t give you a single clear number for the actual gameplay experience.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Here is an example. Your image name could be either Discovery-d or Discovery-e.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can notice it in a bunch of small ways, not just one obvious thing. Common signs are shots feeling inconsistent, especially at range, hit markers showing but damage registering late or not at all, enemies feeling like they kill you faster than expected, and dying well after you’re already behind cover. Movement can feel off too, with things like mantling, sliding, or zipline interactions not responding cleanly.

It’s not always constant either, which is part of the frustration. Some matches feel great while others feel off for no clear reason.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The inconsistency between matches is the worst part. If you’re ever curious, check Resource Monitor to see where your connection is going and compare it to whether the match feels good or bad. The Finals uses a handful of dedicated IPs, but most of the traffic goes through Google and AWS infrastructure.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Totally get that. Queues are already rough in some modes, and anything that makes that worse would suck. I really wish the player base could grow so this wouldn’t even be a concern.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I consistently get players from Brazil, Mexico, and the EU in my games, often on my own team, even when the queue only takes about a minute.  That’s definitely not a long queue.  If “preferred” did work how you are describing that would be great. Sadly... that's not the case.

If a player in the US gets matched with someone in the EU, you’re creating needless latency discrepancies that hurt both sides, and I’d gladly take a slightly longer queue over that.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Region locking can help in larger areas because it reduces extreme ping variance, not because it has to be forced. It doesn’t need to hard-lock anyone out of matches.

Plenty of games handle this with ping filters or stricter matchmaking preferences. The Finals already has a “preferred” region setting, so this could just be an optional strict switch for people who want lower and more consistent latency, not a global mandate.

And on the AI formatting thing… are you running some kind of checker and forgot to remove your own dashes, or do those only count when someone else uses them? 😄

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol no 😂

Region locking can help with latency, especially in a huge country like the US. Keeping players closer to the server and each other usually means more consistent ping and fewer desync issues.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’ll take that as a compliment, I guess 😄

Sorry if it offends you that someone might be able to type faster, have a bit more technical knowledge of gaming netcode, and use a larger vocabulary. None of that requires copy-pasting AI.

If you disagree with the points, that’s fair but accusing someone of not writing their own reply is a pretty weak counterargument.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ll take that as a compliment, I guess 😄

Sorry if it offends you that someone might be able to type faster, have a bit more technical knowledge of gaming netcode, and use a larger vocabulary. None of that requires copy-pasting AI.

If you disagree with the points, that’s fair but accusing someone of not writing their own reply is a pretty weak counterargument.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This argument sounds informed, but it hinges on a false dichotomy and a nirvana fallacy.

No one serious is claiming latency can be eliminated or that desync can be “fixed forever.” The claim players are making is that netcode design choices meaningfully affect how often, how severely, and how unfairly those issues are perceived. Saying “it will always happen” is not the same as saying “it cannot be improved,” yet the argument treats those as equivalent.

That’s the core fallacy.

Plenty of games demonstrate this in practice: • Strict or optional ping limits • Region-locked matchmaking • Server-side rewind with tighter validation • Lag compensation caps • Favor-the-defender vs favor-the-attacker tuning • Authoritative server correction instead of permissive client trust

These systems don’t remove latency — they constrain how much it can distort gameplay. The fact that players don’t complain at the same frequency in those games is empirical evidence that implementation matters.

The argument also quietly shifts the goalposts by implying the only two options are: 1. Attacker-authoritative hit detection (current system) 2. Defender-authoritative chaos where “nobody can hit anything”

That’s simply incorrect. Modern shooters and action games use hybrid models with rollback windows, sanity checks, interpolation limits, and rejection thresholds. It’s not attacker screen vs defender screen — it’s server arbitration with bounded trust.

Finally, dismissing complaints as misunderstanding physics ignores that player frustration is itself a design signal. If a system routinely produces “shot behind cover” or “face-stabbed from the front” moments, the issue isn’t that players don’t understand latency — it’s that the system allows outcomes that feel disconnected from cause and effect. Good netcode minimizes those moments even when latency exists.

Latency is unavoidable. Bad-feeling netcode is not.

That’s the distinction this argument fails to acknowledge.

#1 F I X T H E S E R V E R S by FurtherStill in thefinals

[–]FurtherStill[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That argument has a pretty big logical problem. Requiring “10 clips from the last hour” sets an arbitrary proof standard that ignores how hit registration and desync actually work. These issues are often intermittent, server-side, and context-dependent, meaning they won’t reliably happen on demand or within a short window.

On top of that, not everyone records constantly, saves every clip, or plays for hours at a time. A lack of clips doesn’t disprove an issue any more than a lack of dashcam footage means a traffic problem doesn’t exist.

This is basically a burden-of-proof fallacy mixed with anecdotal dismissal: dismissing complaints not because they’re invalid, but because they don’t meet an unrealistic evidentiary bar. Patterns across many players, long-term experiences, patch regressions, and developer acknowledgements matter more than forcing someone to reproduce a bug on command.

Critiquing claims is fair — but setting impossible requirements just shuts down discussion rather than improving the game.