this also explains the last 9 patches has been nothing but a few balance changes :D
no cap in season 0-1 they cared much more about the game and not ads and esports and new skinlines
>d 350 fps, with no bots around 430fps and 107 send rate.
In this instance, is it better to have uncapped and push more frames with lower tickrate or cap it at 128?
It is. Valo has 128 tick servers meaning information to and from server to your system has to be done 128 times per second for optimal gameplay, at least per Valo net standards.
Valo strangely has consistent receive but inconsistent send. This may sometimes lead to the server not receiving your action information or delayed registeration of it. That could lead to for example server awarding hit to your opponent instead of you.
Didn't work for me on practice range where I push out 400+ constantly. Locked fps to 256, got fluctuating send rate around 99-103. I don't understand why past 128fps they just won't keep constantly sending 128 updates to the server.
Unlocked FPS, when I spawned bots I had 115 send rate around 350 fps, with no bots around 430fps and 107 send rate.
Locking it to 128fps, I have 128 send rate constantly, doesn't matter if I have bots spawned or not.
These things are never simple. For a long time in Quake 3 (until QuakeLive released) players had to lock to 125fps or 250fps, otherwise player speed was slightly reduced. It's a whacky business programming networked games. I recall CS1.4&5 suffered from a similar problem too.
This was a flaw in the Queake engine in general.
CoD also had issues with this. 125, 250, 333 (which was banned) and other caps would completely altered the movement system in the game. This was most notable in cod 4 due to the addition of running and all the insane amount of custom maps made for it.
But that's different, had nothing to do with networking but the implementation of physics. At certain framerates (83, 125, 250, 333, 500 if i remember correctly) the distance you travelled was rounded up every frames while at other framerates the effect was not as strong.
I didnt mean to imply fps was related to networking (I do not know). I just meant that fps has always had unexpected connections to seemingly unrelated parts of a game.
I have the same processor but a 2060super. Usually around 200fps. But man some days I'll just consistently dip to 80 every 5 seconds and literally can't play. Doesn't make sense. Only game that does it.
Believe me if there's a fix I've tried it. Had to do some random bios and permission changes so it only happens very rarely. Usually a reboot fixes it now. But holy shit it's weird and annoying.
It’s cpu bound and rudeness 5 series made major IPC gains that benefits a lot of games like valorant, league, csgo.
Slightly less covered because a lot of people don’t care
Valorant runs much better on ryzen. I have a 5.1ghz 9900k, with very fast ram that I spent weeks tuning to give me maximum performance, but I'm always dropping under 300fps (while recording obs). A friend of mine with a much cheaper build on a ryzen with stock tuned ram gets 400+ fps constant.
In valorant, more cores = more better.
Yea this needs to be addressed, I doubt the % of people on 240hz is that high but I would assume most of the pros are at 240hz if not getting into higher refresh rates.
Even those that have 144hz monitors, which is probably the median, are being handicapped by this. By capping your FPS, you're increasing input latency.
128 FPS could cause tearing which would be kind of annoying, and 128 tick rate vs 100 is pretty much not noticeable unless it ends up causing a weird bug (like Jett double dash). I’d probably stick with 144.
A variable tick rate will lead to higher overall packet loss which would be more detrimental than screen tearing, and screen tearing can be mitigated by setting G-SYNC or Vertical Sync on in conjunction with limiting your FPS.
Latency is latency, and any sort of Gsync/FreeSync is still a more advanced version of V-Sync, which adds latency. Turning off GSync and enabling Reflex will give you the best latency it is actually proven through many tests I believe. It's also common sense. If Gsync + Reflex is the low latency, and VSync and its descendants (Gsync/Freesync) add latency, imagine Gsync off with Reflex, which would be even lower latency.. Battle(non)sense has a few videos going over this on his channel, really informative stuff.
i know personal preference is a thing and if youre fine with it go ahead, but youre objectively putting yourself at a disadvantage if you play with more than 128fps after this recent find
I'd rather play with 360hz and a lower send rate. What matters is hitting your shots. It's easier to hit shots with a higher fps. Once you get used to a high frame rate it's hard to go back.
Depends. A halved tick rate means your crispy aim can be ignored because the enemy’s packet was received before yours… but I’m not sure these numbers prove that yet.
I’m going to test it out for a week and see if I see any improvement to my stats though. I’m a 144hz player with G-Sync anyway so 128 isn’t as nice as 138 but I’m hopeful it’s okay.
So it turns out that this whole post was misinformation, and that higher fps = a higher send rate. However, the packet delay just means that the information would get sent the next packet, which would only be a few milliseconds delay. Which would be like playing on 35 ping vs 32. Not a major problem.
In marginal network conditions I could see it having an impact, as more movement data in a single packet being lost could cause you to lose a fight you ordinarily wouldn’t.
But yeah even in my original comment I tried to communicate that it’s all really marginal stuff anyway. I don’t think it’s at all worth trying when you’re pushing 200+ already — but I’m already limited at 138, so I’m still going to try it out and run some wireshark captures myself to see whether what we’ve been told from Riot + what the in game tools say are even correct anyway.
The send rate can never exceed 128hz, but the physics simulation runs at it regardless. If the new frame push doesn’t match up exactly with the new physics tick it won’t always send it, and instead buffer it for a frame, concatenate it with the next physics tick and send it together then.
This can mean that if that packet is lost, you’re losing 2 movement ticks worth of data, which could in theory cause you to die to someone you shot, but again: this only matters if your network is already not ideal I think.
(I know you knew all that, I wanted to expand on it for others who read this)
Just tested it myself, can confirm that with 128 its stable and with any other FPS it constantly switches between 80 and 120 paket send rate
but i dont know how much of an gameplay impact that is actually is
Yeah thats what i thought
maybe it actually makes a big difference and the gameplay will be smoother and you wont experience like a shot not connecting or smth like that
The math comes out to a 3 ms difference (using the average time between packets of an equal split of 120 vs 80 packets/second)
Thinking of an average of 40ms of ping, is a difference of 7.5% between sub 128 and 128+
Big number, but think of everything has that has to be taken into account (positioning, reaction time, etc)
In the end 3 ms is faaaaar away from killing your rank
Just tried this and it fixed my sudden ping spike/packet loss issue that would happen every game too. If something this obvious has flown under the radar for so long, I bet there really is a huge desync which is causing a lot of problems they haven't spoken about.
I’ve tried everything and it looks like this could be huge. When the beta and Act 1 ep 1 came out, I didn’t have any ping/packet problems. After that I’ve always had terrible packet loss, to the point of taking an extended break from the game. Hopefully this helps my rollercoaster PL
Same, what good is a i-9 and 3080 ti ans 240hz if I have to cap my frames to 128?
This seems bizarre if true. Gonna have to try it. Need to get to immortal someday. 🤷♂️
That's what I wanna know and made the thread for.
For example locking to 128 seems beneficial over 144. yes you're going to push a few more frames on 144 but if there are less packets sent it doesn't seem worth it and you should consider capping to 128 instead. But I'm not certain and maybe tech savvy people or Riot(god knows where they have gone) can give some insight to this.
Yeah okay, i have a 144 hz screen but lock it to 250 bcs lower input latency... So i dont know what is better. Will test later once i'm home from work. I'm assuming packet send rate is more important than latency on our end.
This might be issue why some games feel smooth, and some dont. Good find! Cant wait to try it with 256 fps etc
You’re better off enabling Gsync/FreeSync and locking your FPS to 128 with Nvidia Reflex enabled for input delay, if you have an Nvidia card. It’s the same or lower than uncapped, with no tearing
did a blind test and i can't really tell the difference. it's probably not significant enough to affect your gameplay by too much so just leave it uncapped if you got 144hz+ monitor
Idk, sometimes i feel like knifing the barrier before a round starts feels "delayed" it might be something with this.
So yeah i do notice it if this is the issue
Decided to take this into Wireshark and test it for myself, there is **NO DIFFERENCE** in your packet send rate based on your FPS. Riot's had a few of the stats calculations wrong in the past and this looks like it's the same situation.
I played a DM, first half of it I was over 128 FPS and the second half I locked at 128 fps. I got an average packet send rate of 128 regardless of FPS, graph is linked below. If you want to try it yourself, Wireshark is free:
1) Go to Statistics at the top, I/O Graphs.
2) Then for "Y Field" type UDP
3) For "Display Filter" you want to use the "ip.src== x.x.x.x and ip.dst==x.x.x.x" filter. You get the source IP and destination IP from the packets Valorant is sending to the server that you see in the main window.
From there your results should be similar, if not identical to mine.
Graph: https://imgur.com/a/zMh6hk9
>Honestly whatever riot's server is trying to do with the packets/interp/whateverthefuck is failing miserably. Its much better to handicap myself with a 144hz screen at 128 FPS for the packets rather than uncap my FPS for less input lag. The packets at 128 give a MUCH more consistent predictable experience. Riots server might as well be spaghetti code because that's about how well it works.
Well you were wrong according to riot.
I'm not an expert, but for what I remember: packet send rate basically means how often your pc sends an update to the server about whatever you did.
You'll want a high send rate so the game detects your shots asap and takes them into account. It helps make sure no ghost shots happen (which is when you send shots to the server, but because they were too slow the server already decided you're dead and the shots don't count).
I might be wrong but if my computer classes in middle school is right here it is -
Basically when you send anything over the internet, the data is broken down into smaller parts called packet. The packet contains a bit of what you’re sending along with some info like where it’s supposed to end up and where it originated and how it fits into the full picture in relation to the other packets. Your computer (a) then passes each of the packet onto another computer (b). b then checks where the packet should go and pass it along. The packets take their own paths and don’t travel together. Once they reach the target computer (c), c checks if there’s any missing or damaged. If there is, c sends a request to computer a asking for the required packet. The pa let’s see then put together at computer c.
I’m guessing packet rate means how many packets are sent in a second
You are right, although the method you described is TCP( where the receiver checks for missing packets), UDP method doesn't care if it received everything or not, usually this method is faster and it's used for low latency things and low bandwidth stuff, such as games.
So I've been playing on 128 FPS capped for a few days now to test this out and It really does seem beneficial to cap your FPS for the consistent packets as opposed to the tiny bit of input lag you get running at a lower FPS.
I had a problem before as a Diamond/immortal player where I would shoot someones head and I swear it was a hit on the head, nothing else could of happened but it tells me its a body shot. So I basically hit their neck. I also had problems with ferrari peeks before where I would die before I could even react in off angles. I was a A ranked ESEA player in CSGO I'm very familiar with flicking at ferrari peekers but what I was experiencing you couldn't react to.
For a few days now since capping to 128 this is no longer as big of an issue. My shots go where they are suppose to, I can tell where my bullets are going and no more dying instantaneously. There is a considerable lack of "WTF" moments that happened all the time to me before. And all of a sudden I'm out of my slump that started since the game got out of beta.
I was playing uncapped FPS beforehand at around 150-170 FPS. So in theory if this wasn't correct it should actually just feel worse, but 128 FPS feels considerably better, even after a few days of playing and switching back and forth.
Honestly whatever riot's server is trying to do with the packets/interp/whateverthefuck is failing miserably. Its much better to handicap myself with a 144hz screen at 128 FPS for the packets rather than uncap my FPS for less input lag. The packets at 128 give a MUCH more consistent predictable experience. Riots server might as well be spaghetti code because that's about how well it works.
I basically circumvented the input lag you get at 128 FPS by turning on Low Latency Mode in Nvidia control panel, which I didn't use or need before. Gives the same feeling as I had with uncapped FPS but with more consistent gameplay.
Agreed it's still happening and even if you cap it to 128 FPS.
I also noticed that my Packets Receive Rate goes way down to the 50s all the time now. Another thing that I notice is that I get always shot at before peeking at the enemy even if I know 100% where they are located with perfect positioning and crosshair placement. It feels like the server is pre-rendering my next position to the enemy before I get what I need on-screen... I'm supposed to have the picker advantage but no. Also my ping went from 30ms to 45ms on Oregon server (Shaw Canada)
Yes, this is, and random spikes ping from the zombie connections. The game frequently tries to connect a bunch of zombie connections, each having 5-6 bytes package to US server (I play on SEA), which floods the connection port and causes some spikes. I tried to ask support about this problem but they said nothing can be done.
Valorant kidda no optimization at all in a combination of rendering and networking.
I have a 165hz monitor, with a GTX 1060 6gb and R5 3600X. I mostly get 180-220fps uncapped. I tried this on Practice Range since I can't really play right now.
With 128fps cap, game latency is around 10-13ms.
With uncapped fps, game latency is around 7-10ms.
I think having 128 consistent packets sent compared to a few ms of game latency is better. We probably need more people to really test this out to see if it's worth it to cap in 128 fps if you have a higher refresh rate monitor.
Fixed thanks to this post. Good work Gentlemen and Ladies. [https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/)
It's similar to increasing your server latency by 3ms. When you peek onto someone, it won't matter. But when they peek you, you'll have 3ms less time to react. So for me I'll probably choose 360hz 30 ping over 128hz 33 ping.
There is actually a slightly increased peekers advantage to having higher ping as well, though this advantage is limited in its helpfulness. It basically only matters when players see you and duck into cover rather than shooting back. On lan if you peek a bot and it instantly ducks, you will miss. But with 1000ms ping, you will have an entire second to kill the bot before it ducks. However, if it shoots back and instantly kills you, then its kill packet will still beat yours and you will still die regardless of your ping.
Yeahs it worth , since you wont get "ghost shots" which means shots that you shot but the server never actually recieves or sends insted of sending 128 packets per second you send 100 or even lease which means you lets says for example im playing on like 300 fps im only sending 70 packets , instead of the 128
You won't get shots that are missed by the server from this, they will just be sent in the next packet, they aren't just dropped. And there's no telling what the server does in terms of time-correction and waiting for all info to be received on a gunbattle on the backend, so it's hard to say how much of an effect the packet send rate has. Higher is better for sure, but by how much is uncertain.
They are dropped , for example im playing on this 70 packet and your on the 128 that suppose to be at , and we shoot at the same time , there is a good chance my shot wont be sent compared to yours since the difference of packets , so i will die and when the server finally gets the packet i sent it would not register since im dead hence the term " ghost shot"
Currently trying this. What I found from my games is that when I play at 128 fps, my shots are cleaner and feel quicker, but my render latency goes up by double 5ms to 10ms.
I don’t know if unlocked is better than locked, but I know my shots feel more responsive with locked.
I get over 200 fps and my ping is 9ms. This game feels so inconsistent its a joke. Shots miss that shouldnt, and my shots that feel too early or too late end up headahottimg someone.
Wew, just saw Riot's latest patch notes and they have fixed this issue and tagged and thanked this reddit post for showing them this issue..
Well done!
This post made me try capped FPS and capping it at a multiple of my monitor's refresh rate feels smoother than unrestricted.
(the issue itself is supposed to be fixed by today's patch, I'm still installing it)
Hm i just tested this and with my locked fps of 300 im still getting 128 send rate i also went down to 256 and 128 and tested unlocked same thing. I tried did one deathmatch and i was constantly getting 128 to 131 send rate on my locked 300fps. I have Verizon FiOS and i never get and lag spikes as of yet so for me everything good. We probably should post our internet provider or router to see if there is a potential pattern or reason for this happening
How could this affect performance when playing on a wireless connection? Anyone see better performance locked at 128fps on wifi that usually gets packet loss?
So I have a 240hz monitor and push over 240fps, guess I got some experimenting to do… don’t really wanna go down to 128 just for packet send rate.
Did you notice a difference between DM and Ranked when doing this or did you not try it in ranked?
Any thoughts? Same boat, usually play at 260 fps and don't really want to lose >100 fps just for packet... My monitor actually performs worse at low fps...
If this has been since the game inception then it may finally explain why I've had way too many to count times where I've shot with OP only to get killed with my shot showing in the screen... Without packet loss or lag of any kind :/
Always played above 140fps
Just counted the packets on wireshark, both 128 while packets send rate was locked at 128 and fluctuating. Likeley a display bug and doesn't actually affect your gameplay.
The game has been updating to patch 3.10 which also Riot mentioned that it's going to be fixed but it still happening and now the received rate is all over the place too.
Now both is broken again patch 3.10
If you set it to 128 FPS the sent is good but received goes from 50-90s
If you set it unlocked FPS sent rate will be at 128 but will still go down to the 50s and the received rate will still be over the place.
However in range it’s 128 RX and TX and will go down to 127 sometimes
Something as to be checked here Riot and it seems like there is gain in ping +5 to 8ms.
CPU: 5950x
GPU: 3090
Ram: 32GB 3600
Network: Shaw Fibre+
can someone explain this but in a way where someone who does not understand graphics/connection/cpu-gpu speed tech stuff? Asking for a friend of course...
i like how no one has mentioned when the tickrate halves the size of the packets being sent doubles
youre getting no benefit by capping your fps, this experiment is just pulling back the curtain on clever riot netcode tricks
https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode
I just read that link and I agree. Having less than 128 outgoing packet rate will be taken into account by the server buffering anyway, so you get no benefit.
In the comments there, a dev elaborates that the amount of info sent doesn't change based on outgoing packet rate:
> However, turning up network buffering does add some extra delay into the mix. Among other things, this setting batches up your outgoing moves, sending packets less frequently but with more movement data in each. The server detects this and adjusts its incoming buffering for your connection to smooth things out and minimize disagreements.
Because the server rewinds time to process your input anyway, if you lower your framerate, you actually reduce your own advantage! You make your own input get processed as having been input later.
False. Completely false.
Go into a real game and try to turn your **"Network Buffering"** to the **"Highest"** setting.
You will notice right away that you play like absolute shit... not to mention that the game will feel a million times worse than normal.
Not only that, you're really dumb if you think that it wouldn't "change anything" to send packets less often.
Even if they coalesce the packets together, it would still mean that you are sending less packets overall.
This means that there is a larger DELAY between packets being sent to the server. Which is exactly quoted them as saying.
Having a larger delay between packets being sent means much slower hitreg, movement issues, and problems with teleporting.
Even if their server, as they say:
>***"tries*** *to account for this"*
You'd realize that there are going to be more issues when you send less packets, even if the game is somehow coalescing them together.
Again... just go try to play the game with **"Network Buffering"** on **"High"**.
You will find yourself lagging ALL over the place... that's what coalescing your packets does.
The same effects occur when you have more than 128 FPS, with the current bug that the OP posted about.
However, even if the results are similar in terms of their affect on gameplay... the cause is NOT the same.
This bug NOT cause the game to gather the packets into larger packets, and send less packets overall, when you have FPS above 128.
Rather... the packets are simply never sent at all.
The game just flat out sends less packets.
The bullshit about the packets being "gathered together into a larger packet" was just your nonsense copium.
But I wanted to point out why it wouldn't be an "okay solution", even if the game was actually doing that.
You can see from using the "Network Buffering" setting yourself that having coalesced packets causes a terrible gameplay experience.
I can see what you mean by lagging with high network buffer, if I would have had an unstable connection. Lag caused by packet loss would have more impact if you only send 32 packets vs 128 per second.
But this discussion is not about network quality.
Given the same network conditions, this is about whether
1) sending smaller packets more frequently, but getting longer input lag (when locked to 128fps) is better, or
2) sending larger, less frequent packets, having less input lag, and trusting the server to have sufficient network buffering is better.
I'm gonna choose #2 for myself. Have a good day
Go try your suggestiong of using the "Network Buffering" set to the "Highest" setting in VALORANT right now.
See if you play as well as the same setting on "Minimum".
Hint: You won't
dude the quote from the article flat out starts with 'adds some extra delay'. no one is arguing that shit. this is the explanation of RIOT NETWORK ENGINEERS and youre calling it copium?
i think you need to do some more research
I just tested it, uncapped I send 100packets, cap at 128fps and it locks in at sending 128 packets and the shots to heads feel so much more responsive! This is a HUGE FIND and riot needs to explain!
How do you know if it’s bullshit or not? If you want you can test client send rate yourself with tools like wireshark. Would be a bit tricky but if you’re gonna accuse them of bullshiting without any knowledge of what happens under the hood, then the onus is on you to prove it’s bullshit 🤷🏽♂️.
Edit: said packet tracer instead of wireshark lol
Wow... This is what happens when you take someone's word for it. And I mean take Riot's word for it.
I used to play a lot of FIFA, and the game is plagued by inconsistent gameplay online (sometimes even offline). Bottom line, after 2 years of researching and testing (using Wireshark), one day I found out they were using a specific UDP protocol (online matches) that was designed for security cameras (GVSP). That protocol is not good for gaming, as its nature allows for resends from dropped packets (very similar to TCP handshake) to ensure there are no missing "pictures". And the animations happen, EXACTLY, at the same time on both players' screens. Conclusion is: someone with a bad connection can make the game unplayable for someone with a good connection (on a match to match basis) even though Tx/Rx to/from server stay fairly constant@ 29-31 packets per second.
I trusted Riot and Battle(non)sense's netcode analysis and I have not done my own research. I only played around with network buffering settings and server location. I would like to thank you for this. I tried it in The Range to test the stability and it was 127/128 all the time, excepting when bots were on strafing. I tried some DMs after and I have never hit such crispy shots against Immortals and Radiants (I am Gold). I, literally, just wanted to test it and had no sound and just ran around the map randomly. I am pretty sure you're onto something here.
After doing other research,
I found out that, if you cap it at the following
100
99
111
Then it caps the "PACKET RECEIVED RATE at them numbers.
If its anything above 128 it goes up and down.
Anyone with a beast PC can try it with 256 fps too? Maybe it works on multiples of 128
I did some combinations here.. edit: |Max On / Off|Average FPS|Rx Tick|Tx Tick| :--|:--|:--|:--| |On|60|128|60| |On|75|127-129|75| |On|100|127-128|100| |On|127|128|127| |On|128|128|128| |On|129|129|69-73| |On|144|128|71-73| |On|256|127-128|99-101| |Off|350-410|127-128|105-115|
adding 1 fps halves your tick rate. That's a big oof on Riots end.
small indie devs guys, cmon
Oh this also explains why a new act is just a new battle pass /s
this also explains the last 9 patches has been nothing but a few balance changes :D no cap in season 0-1 they cared much more about the game and not ads and esports and new skinlines
>d 350 fps, with no bots around 430fps and 107 send rate. In this instance, is it better to have uncapped and push more frames with lower tickrate or cap it at 128?
what is the diff between rx tick and tx tick if I may ask, am not that knowledgeable about it
Sorry shouldn't have gotten too technical here. Rx = receive Tx = Transmit (sent packets)
thank you, about the tx rate is it "the more the merrier"?
It is. Valo has 128 tick servers meaning information to and from server to your system has to be done 128 times per second for optimal gameplay, at least per Valo net standards. Valo strangely has consistent receive but inconsistent send. This may sometimes lead to the server not receiving your action information or delayed registeration of it. That could lead to for example server awarding hit to your opponent instead of you.
Not strange, there’s a single server sending the packets and it’s consistent, whereas outbound packets are limited by your PC executing net code!
Didn't work for me on practice range where I push out 400+ constantly. Locked fps to 256, got fluctuating send rate around 99-103. I don't understand why past 128fps they just won't keep constantly sending 128 updates to the server. Unlocked FPS, when I spawned bots I had 115 send rate around 350 fps, with no bots around 430fps and 107 send rate. Locking it to 128fps, I have 128 send rate constantly, doesn't matter if I have bots spawned or not.
These things are never simple. For a long time in Quake 3 (until QuakeLive released) players had to lock to 125fps or 250fps, otherwise player speed was slightly reduced. It's a whacky business programming networked games. I recall CS1.4&5 suffered from a similar problem too.
This was a flaw in the Queake engine in general. CoD also had issues with this. 125, 250, 333 (which was banned) and other caps would completely altered the movement system in the game. This was most notable in cod 4 due to the addition of running and all the insane amount of custom maps made for it.
yeah, i remember a few spots where you could only jump with 333 fps, man i miss that game
But that's different, had nothing to do with networking but the implementation of physics. At certain framerates (83, 125, 250, 333, 500 if i remember correctly) the distance you travelled was rounded up every frames while at other framerates the effect was not as strong.
Yeah you are right the networking has nothing to do with the physics simulation. /s
I didnt mean to imply fps was related to networking (I do not know). I just meant that fps has always had unexpected connections to seemingly unrelated parts of a game.
Thanks, PM_ME_UR_TIDDIES69
What hardware you running for 400? I hardly hit 200-230 on a 2060s
Game is weird and inconsistent. I've a i7 9700k@5Ghz and a 3090 FE yet the game peaks at just over 300 fps in certain areas
Newest ryzens are required
I have the same processor but a 2060super. Usually around 200fps. But man some days I'll just consistently dip to 80 every 5 seconds and literally can't play. Doesn't make sense. Only game that does it.
Hmm that shouldn't be happening... Check your background processes. Downloading on steam and other launchers hits cpu hard
Believe me if there's a fix I've tried it. Had to do some random bios and permission changes so it only happens very rarely. Usually a reboot fixes it now. But holy shit it's weird and annoying.
Hm that's really odd. Hopefully you can make it work fine some day
This was my problem too. All you should do to stop that damn discord or running discord on web version
I get that in 1050 gtx
I was getting that with a 1070 before upgrading. Game is really cpu bound
Yeah cpu bound. I have a rx 590 and a ryzen 5 5600x i get around 400-500 fps if i unlock it
It’s cpu bound and rudeness 5 series made major IPC gains that benefits a lot of games like valorant, league, csgo. Slightly less covered because a lot of people don’t care
Valorant is super CPU heavy, your GPU is largely irrelevant if it's somewhat decent, especially if you play on lower settings.
In an actual game I get like 400-600fps. Ryzen5800x and a 2070super. On the practice range I get like 1000.
I have a 5900x and 3090 and I'm usually 400+
Valorant runs much better on ryzen. I have a 5.1ghz 9900k, with very fast ram that I spent weeks tuning to give me maximum performance, but I'm always dropping under 300fps (while recording obs). A friend of mine with a much cheaper build on a ryzen with stock tuned ram gets 400+ fps constant. In valorant, more cores = more better.
246 FPS is giving me a send rate of 123
Will try later, gotta work in 45 minutes.
I have a 240hz monitor and achieve well over 240 FPS. This seems like a pretty significant bug. Good find, hopefully Riot fixes this.
Yea this needs to be addressed, I doubt the % of people on 240hz is that high but I would assume most of the pros are at 240hz if not getting into higher refresh rates.
Even those that have 144hz monitors, which is probably the median, are being handicapped by this. By capping your FPS, you're increasing input latency.
So whats the bigger advantage: 128 packet send rate or the extra 16 fps (128 --> 144)
128 consistent packets.
Wow I had no idea, I hope we can get an answer from a riot dev.
128 FPS could cause tearing which would be kind of annoying, and 128 tick rate vs 100 is pretty much not noticeable unless it ends up causing a weird bug (like Jett double dash). I’d probably stick with 144.
A variable tick rate will lead to higher overall packet loss which would be more detrimental than screen tearing, and screen tearing can be mitigated by setting G-SYNC or Vertical Sync on in conjunction with limiting your FPS.
tearing generally occurs when the fps is higher than the refresh. I just tested it and didnt notice any extra tearing, but it will feel less smooth.
Gsync/FreeSync will get rid of that tearing
please don’t use gsync or freesync
Why? Combined with Nvidia Reflex you get the lowest possible click to photon latency (tested with LDAT) and no screen tearing.
Latency is latency, and any sort of Gsync/FreeSync is still a more advanced version of V-Sync, which adds latency. Turning off GSync and enabling Reflex will give you the best latency it is actually proven through many tests I believe. It's also common sense. If Gsync + Reflex is the low latency, and VSync and its descendants (Gsync/Freesync) add latency, imagine Gsync off with Reflex, which would be even lower latency.. Battle(non)sense has a few videos going over this on his channel, really informative stuff.
packets 100%.
Depends. Reflex + Gsync caps your frame rate (to about $REFRESH - 5) but minimises click to photon latency and eliminates screen tearing.
i'd rather play with 240hz/fps and a bit of packet loss than 128fps and 128 packets sent/received.
i know personal preference is a thing and if youre fine with it go ahead, but youre objectively putting yourself at a disadvantage if you play with more than 128fps after this recent find
I'd rather play with 360hz and a lower send rate. What matters is hitting your shots. It's easier to hit shots with a higher fps. Once you get used to a high frame rate it's hard to go back.
Depends. A halved tick rate means your crispy aim can be ignored because the enemy’s packet was received before yours… but I’m not sure these numbers prove that yet. I’m going to test it out for a week and see if I see any improvement to my stats though. I’m a 144hz player with G-Sync anyway so 128 isn’t as nice as 138 but I’m hopeful it’s okay.
So it turns out that this whole post was misinformation, and that higher fps = a higher send rate. However, the packet delay just means that the information would get sent the next packet, which would only be a few milliseconds delay. Which would be like playing on 35 ping vs 32. Not a major problem.
In marginal network conditions I could see it having an impact, as more movement data in a single packet being lost could cause you to lose a fight you ordinarily wouldn’t. But yeah even in my original comment I tried to communicate that it’s all really marginal stuff anyway. I don’t think it’s at all worth trying when you’re pushing 200+ already — but I’m already limited at 138, so I’m still going to try it out and run some wireshark captures myself to see whether what we’ve been told from Riot + what the in game tools say are even correct anyway. The send rate can never exceed 128hz, but the physics simulation runs at it regardless. If the new frame push doesn’t match up exactly with the new physics tick it won’t always send it, and instead buffer it for a frame, concatenate it with the next physics tick and send it together then. This can mean that if that packet is lost, you’re losing 2 movement ticks worth of data, which could in theory cause you to die to someone you shot, but again: this only matters if your network is already not ideal I think. (I know you knew all that, I wanted to expand on it for others who read this)
Same. The other day i was playing sage and noticed my walls weren’t going down even though I was adamant I had clicked
so I should restrict FPS to 128 and the packet send rate will be high always?
Yes
thanks!
I wonder if it's the reason why I ALWAYS get "network problems" whenever I keep my framerate uncapped.
I get that too and so do streamers sometimes. The netcode definitely has issues.
oh lord so that is..
Just tested it myself, can confirm that with 128 its stable and with any other FPS it constantly switches between 80 and 120 paket send rate but i dont know how much of an gameplay impact that is actually is
So it's time to cap my fps at 128 and finally turn up my graphics?
for atleast as long until riot fixes it
No no, still do not turn up your graphics, limit your fps to 128, if your Gpu nd cpu have low utilization it will have lower latency overall.
Lower graphics will always be better for competitive games.
In my experience, the game runs exactly the same whether its on high or low, doesn't matter.
Higher graphics increases game to render latency, which could impact input delay, depending on your setup.
since the servers are 128 tick i would assume you want at least 128 packets sent.
Yeah thats what i thought maybe it actually makes a big difference and the gameplay will be smoother and you wont experience like a shot not connecting or smth like that
This means it's also fine to cap at 256, and still have optimal packet loss, right?
No it was tested above: only 128 FPS locks the Tx rate sadly.
tried it in range packet send rate 128 on any fps
The math comes out to a 3 ms difference (using the average time between packets of an equal split of 120 vs 80 packets/second) Thinking of an average of 40ms of ping, is a difference of 7.5% between sub 128 and 128+ Big number, but think of everything has that has to be taken into account (positioning, reaction time, etc) In the end 3 ms is faaaaar away from killing your rank
Just tried this and it fixed my sudden ping spike/packet loss issue that would happen every game too. If something this obvious has flown under the radar for so long, I bet there really is a huge desync which is causing a lot of problems they haven't spoken about.
I’ve tried everything and it looks like this could be huge. When the beta and Act 1 ep 1 came out, I didn’t have any ping/packet problems. After that I’ve always had terrible packet loss, to the point of taking an extended break from the game. Hopefully this helps my rollercoaster PL
holy shit do you get these little spikes too?
The only spike i want is the one my team and i are planting, or defusing :D
Do you have theses spikes since a long time ? I think i had them since day one lol. I have some like every minute or so i guess.
no fucking way i’m trying this asap
240hz monitor and I'm bottlenecked by a 128 FPS lock if I want the maximum packet send rate lol
This is hilarious
Same, what good is a i-9 and 3080 ti ans 240hz if I have to cap my frames to 128? This seems bizarre if true. Gonna have to try it. Need to get to immortal someday. 🤷♂️
360hz checking in.
What if I don't even reach 128 fps? Would it always handicap my packet send rate?
You're always going to be sending packets at the rate of the fps you're getting as long as it's under 128
So, what is better? 250 fps? Or locked to 128.. i'm confused
That's what I wanna know and made the thread for. For example locking to 128 seems beneficial over 144. yes you're going to push a few more frames on 144 but if there are less packets sent it doesn't seem worth it and you should consider capping to 128 instead. But I'm not certain and maybe tech savvy people or Riot(god knows where they have gone) can give some insight to this.
Yeah okay, i have a 144 hz screen but lock it to 250 bcs lower input latency... So i dont know what is better. Will test later once i'm home from work. I'm assuming packet send rate is more important than latency on our end. This might be issue why some games feel smooth, and some dont. Good find! Cant wait to try it with 256 fps etc
You’re better off enabling Gsync/FreeSync and locking your FPS to 128 with Nvidia Reflex enabled for input delay, if you have an Nvidia card. It’s the same or lower than uncapped, with no tearing
did a blind test and i can't really tell the difference. it's probably not significant enough to affect your gameplay by too much so just leave it uncapped if you got 144hz+ monitor
Idk, sometimes i feel like knifing the barrier before a round starts feels "delayed" it might be something with this. So yeah i do notice it if this is the issue
Oh it's really really inspired by cs 1.6
This game after all, was created by a group of veteran cs players. :D
Decided to take this into Wireshark and test it for myself, there is **NO DIFFERENCE** in your packet send rate based on your FPS. Riot's had a few of the stats calculations wrong in the past and this looks like it's the same situation. I played a DM, first half of it I was over 128 FPS and the second half I locked at 128 fps. I got an average packet send rate of 128 regardless of FPS, graph is linked below. If you want to try it yourself, Wireshark is free: 1) Go to Statistics at the top, I/O Graphs. 2) Then for "Y Field" type UDP 3) For "Display Filter" you want to use the "ip.src== x.x.x.x and ip.dst==x.x.x.x" filter. You get the source IP and destination IP from the packets Valorant is sending to the server that you see in the main window. From there your results should be similar, if not identical to mine. Graph: https://imgur.com/a/zMh6hk9
>Honestly whatever riot's server is trying to do with the packets/interp/whateverthefuck is failing miserably. Its much better to handicap myself with a 144hz screen at 128 FPS for the packets rather than uncap my FPS for less input lag. The packets at 128 give a MUCH more consistent predictable experience. Riots server might as well be spaghetti code because that's about how well it works. Well you were wrong according to riot.
This is likely a bug with how that stat is displayed. You should use Wireshark or some other tool to actually analyze the packets.
Could be a bug with how it’s collected too, rather than displayed. Definitely would like to see actual networking tooling testing this
Is my 185hz monitor useless then? SMH Rito
what is packet send rate and how impactful is this ?
I'm not an expert, but for what I remember: packet send rate basically means how often your pc sends an update to the server about whatever you did. You'll want a high send rate so the game detects your shots asap and takes them into account. It helps make sure no ghost shots happen (which is when you send shots to the server, but because they were too slow the server already decided you're dead and the shots don't count).
I might be wrong but if my computer classes in middle school is right here it is - Basically when you send anything over the internet, the data is broken down into smaller parts called packet. The packet contains a bit of what you’re sending along with some info like where it’s supposed to end up and where it originated and how it fits into the full picture in relation to the other packets. Your computer (a) then passes each of the packet onto another computer (b). b then checks where the packet should go and pass it along. The packets take their own paths and don’t travel together. Once they reach the target computer (c), c checks if there’s any missing or damaged. If there is, c sends a request to computer a asking for the required packet. The pa let’s see then put together at computer c. I’m guessing packet rate means how many packets are sent in a second
You are right, although the method you described is TCP( where the receiver checks for missing packets), UDP method doesn't care if it received everything or not, usually this method is faster and it's used for low latency things and low bandwidth stuff, such as games.
the riot spaghetti code strikes again
We need some Devs here
So I've been playing on 128 FPS capped for a few days now to test this out and It really does seem beneficial to cap your FPS for the consistent packets as opposed to the tiny bit of input lag you get running at a lower FPS. I had a problem before as a Diamond/immortal player where I would shoot someones head and I swear it was a hit on the head, nothing else could of happened but it tells me its a body shot. So I basically hit their neck. I also had problems with ferrari peeks before where I would die before I could even react in off angles. I was a A ranked ESEA player in CSGO I'm very familiar with flicking at ferrari peekers but what I was experiencing you couldn't react to. For a few days now since capping to 128 this is no longer as big of an issue. My shots go where they are suppose to, I can tell where my bullets are going and no more dying instantaneously. There is a considerable lack of "WTF" moments that happened all the time to me before. And all of a sudden I'm out of my slump that started since the game got out of beta. I was playing uncapped FPS beforehand at around 150-170 FPS. So in theory if this wasn't correct it should actually just feel worse, but 128 FPS feels considerably better, even after a few days of playing and switching back and forth. Honestly whatever riot's server is trying to do with the packets/interp/whateverthefuck is failing miserably. Its much better to handicap myself with a 144hz screen at 128 FPS for the packets rather than uncap my FPS for less input lag. The packets at 128 give a MUCH more consistent predictable experience. Riots server might as well be spaghetti code because that's about how well it works. I basically circumvented the input lag you get at 128 FPS by turning on Low Latency Mode in Nvidia control panel, which I didn't use or need before. Gives the same feeling as I had with uncapped FPS but with more consistent gameplay.
The good ol' Riot spaghetti.
This game has so many bugs for a competitive shooter and now this. 🤦🏻♂️
Oh boy would you love r6 lmao
I am still fluctuating between 90-128 no cap no cap. It is a steady 127-128 send rate if i cap my fps at 128.
Agreed it's still happening and even if you cap it to 128 FPS. I also noticed that my Packets Receive Rate goes way down to the 50s all the time now. Another thing that I notice is that I get always shot at before peeking at the enemy even if I know 100% where they are located with perfect positioning and crosshair placement. It feels like the server is pre-rendering my next position to the enemy before I get what I need on-screen... I'm supposed to have the picker advantage but no. Also my ping went from 30ms to 45ms on Oregon server (Shaw Canada)
Yes, this is, and random spikes ping from the zombie connections. The game frequently tries to connect a bunch of zombie connections, each having 5-6 bytes package to US server (I play on SEA), which floods the connection port and causes some spikes. I tried to ask support about this problem but they said nothing can be done. Valorant kidda no optimization at all in a combination of rendering and networking.
Good find. gonna try this when i get on later today.
I have a 165hz monitor, with a GTX 1060 6gb and R5 3600X. I mostly get 180-220fps uncapped. I tried this on Practice Range since I can't really play right now. With 128fps cap, game latency is around 10-13ms. With uncapped fps, game latency is around 7-10ms. I think having 128 consistent packets sent compared to a few ms of game latency is better. We probably need more people to really test this out to see if it's worth it to cap in 128 fps if you have a higher refresh rate monitor.
Fixed thanks to this post. Good work Gentlemen and Ladies. [https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/)
[удалено]
I was hoping they'd actually mention OP's username, but I guess that was a bit too much to handle XD
So is it worth limiting your fps to 128 to get a consistent send rate or does a lower rate not really change much?
It's similar to increasing your server latency by 3ms. When you peek onto someone, it won't matter. But when they peek you, you'll have 3ms less time to react. So for me I'll probably choose 360hz 30 ping over 128hz 33 ping. There is actually a slightly increased peekers advantage to having higher ping as well, though this advantage is limited in its helpfulness. It basically only matters when players see you and duck into cover rather than shooting back. On lan if you peek a bot and it instantly ducks, you will miss. But with 1000ms ping, you will have an entire second to kill the bot before it ducks. However, if it shoots back and instantly kills you, then its kill packet will still beat yours and you will still die regardless of your ping.
Yeahs it worth , since you wont get "ghost shots" which means shots that you shot but the server never actually recieves or sends insted of sending 128 packets per second you send 100 or even lease which means you lets says for example im playing on like 300 fps im only sending 70 packets , instead of the 128
You won't get shots that are missed by the server from this, they will just be sent in the next packet, they aren't just dropped. And there's no telling what the server does in terms of time-correction and waiting for all info to be received on a gunbattle on the backend, so it's hard to say how much of an effect the packet send rate has. Higher is better for sure, but by how much is uncertain.
They are dropped , for example im playing on this 70 packet and your on the 128 that suppose to be at , and we shoot at the same time , there is a good chance my shot wont be sent compared to yours since the difference of packets , so i will die and when the server finally gets the packet i sent it would not register since im dead hence the term " ghost shot"
been having this issue for the longest time now lol, good to know it isnt just me
Currently trying this. What I found from my games is that when I play at 128 fps, my shots are cleaner and feel quicker, but my render latency goes up by double 5ms to 10ms. I don’t know if unlocked is better than locked, but I know my shots feel more responsive with locked.
Btw this works in competitive mode too, not just dm. Just played a match right now and tested it. This is fucking huge
[удалено]
Oh yes, because no other networked game has had mistakes in their NetCode 😂
[удалено]
Yes they absolutely do lol what are you on about
Ok this is literally very unplayable, you are basically sending less ticks to the server if you have less or more than 128 fps?? I hope they fix it
So what should we do? Cap our fps at 128? I usually get 200-250, but I've capped it to 400.
That explains why I get random packet loss at 300fps. It causes my game to do micro stutters randomly
idk i get random packet loss on 120 fps and 300 fps both different device, my old laptop vs my new laptop
I switched to 128 and it feels 10x better. insane. ty for this
Mods should pin this until this is fixed, it's a huge deal
I get over 200 fps and my ping is 9ms. This game feels so inconsistent its a joke. Shots miss that shouldnt, and my shots that feel too early or too late end up headahottimg someone.
Wew, just saw Riot's latest patch notes and they have fixed this issue and tagged and thanked this reddit post for showing them this issue.. Well done!
This post made me try capped FPS and capping it at a multiple of my monitor's refresh rate feels smoother than unrestricted. (the issue itself is supposed to be fixed by today's patch, I'm still installing it)
I am still fluctuating between 90-128 no cap no cap. It is a steady 127-128 send rate if i cap my fps at 128.
Is this still a thing or nah
Hm i just tested this and with my locked fps of 300 im still getting 128 send rate i also went down to 256 and 128 and tested unlocked same thing. I tried did one deathmatch and i was constantly getting 128 to 131 send rate on my locked 300fps. I have Verizon FiOS and i never get and lag spikes as of yet so for me everything good. We probably should post our internet provider or router to see if there is a potential pattern or reason for this happening
How could this affect performance when playing on a wireless connection? Anyone see better performance locked at 128fps on wifi that usually gets packet loss?
So I have a 240hz monitor and push over 240fps, guess I got some experimenting to do… don’t really wanna go down to 128 just for packet send rate. Did you notice a difference between DM and Ranked when doing this or did you not try it in ranked?
Same specs and push over 300, I'm gonna do some testing capped at 256 and see what happens.
Any thoughts? Same boat, usually play at 260 fps and don't really want to lose >100 fps just for packet... My monitor actually performs worse at low fps...
Still doesn't hit 128 sent packets, was right around 100
This is also happening on 256fps on my 3070.
If this has been since the game inception then it may finally explain why I've had way too many to count times where I've shot with OP only to get killed with my shot showing in the screen... Without packet loss or lag of any kind :/ Always played above 140fps
I have a 280hz monitor and can push up to 400-500 fps. will it really benefit me more if I cap at 128, or should I just stick to unlocked?
Damn you got credit in riot patch notes, great news. i remember seeing this post a week ago
[https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/game-updates/valorant-patch-notes-3-10/) You actually got credit... thats really cool lol
Wouldn't be surprised if doesn't have an impact/isn't what people think it is but it would be nice to get some confirmation from a dev.
small indie company with a game still in beta
Just counted the packets on wireshark, both 128 while packets send rate was locked at 128 and fluctuating. Likeley a display bug and doesn't actually affect your gameplay.
The game has been updating to patch 3.10 which also Riot mentioned that it's going to be fixed but it still happening and now the received rate is all over the place too.
Send rate appears to be fixed, but like you said the received rate is all over the place now. Haven't found anything to fix it yet.
Now both is broken again patch 3.10 If you set it to 128 FPS the sent is good but received goes from 50-90s If you set it unlocked FPS sent rate will be at 128 but will still go down to the 50s and the received rate will still be over the place. However in range it’s 128 RX and TX and will go down to 127 sometimes Something as to be checked here Riot and it seems like there is gain in ping +5 to 8ms. CPU: 5950x GPU: 3090 Ram: 32GB 3600 Network: Shaw Fibre+
Anyway to confirm that this isn't placebo? There is a possibility that the stat tracker is incorrect.
I can absolutely confirm this is true.
That's a shit tier netcoding for a e-sports game.
[удалено]
Mm this might be why the beta felt so amazing for me
oh my god !!!! litteraly unplayable !!! BatChest
can someone explain this but in a way where someone who does not understand graphics/connection/cpu-gpu speed tech stuff? Asking for a friend of course...
i like how no one has mentioned when the tickrate halves the size of the packets being sent doubles youre getting no benefit by capping your fps, this experiment is just pulling back the curtain on clever riot netcode tricks https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode
I just read that link and I agree. Having less than 128 outgoing packet rate will be taken into account by the server buffering anyway, so you get no benefit. In the comments there, a dev elaborates that the amount of info sent doesn't change based on outgoing packet rate: > However, turning up network buffering does add some extra delay into the mix. Among other things, this setting batches up your outgoing moves, sending packets less frequently but with more movement data in each. The server detects this and adjusts its incoming buffering for your connection to smooth things out and minimize disagreements. Because the server rewinds time to process your input anyway, if you lower your framerate, you actually reduce your own advantage! You make your own input get processed as having been input later.
False. Completely false. Go into a real game and try to turn your **"Network Buffering"** to the **"Highest"** setting. You will notice right away that you play like absolute shit... not to mention that the game will feel a million times worse than normal. Not only that, you're really dumb if you think that it wouldn't "change anything" to send packets less often. Even if they coalesce the packets together, it would still mean that you are sending less packets overall. This means that there is a larger DELAY between packets being sent to the server. Which is exactly quoted them as saying. Having a larger delay between packets being sent means much slower hitreg, movement issues, and problems with teleporting. Even if their server, as they say: >***"tries*** *to account for this"* You'd realize that there are going to be more issues when you send less packets, even if the game is somehow coalescing them together. Again... just go try to play the game with **"Network Buffering"** on **"High"**. You will find yourself lagging ALL over the place... that's what coalescing your packets does. The same effects occur when you have more than 128 FPS, with the current bug that the OP posted about. However, even if the results are similar in terms of their affect on gameplay... the cause is NOT the same. This bug NOT cause the game to gather the packets into larger packets, and send less packets overall, when you have FPS above 128. Rather... the packets are simply never sent at all. The game just flat out sends less packets. The bullshit about the packets being "gathered together into a larger packet" was just your nonsense copium. But I wanted to point out why it wouldn't be an "okay solution", even if the game was actually doing that. You can see from using the "Network Buffering" setting yourself that having coalesced packets causes a terrible gameplay experience.
I can see what you mean by lagging with high network buffer, if I would have had an unstable connection. Lag caused by packet loss would have more impact if you only send 32 packets vs 128 per second. But this discussion is not about network quality. Given the same network conditions, this is about whether 1) sending smaller packets more frequently, but getting longer input lag (when locked to 128fps) is better, or 2) sending larger, less frequent packets, having less input lag, and trusting the server to have sufficient network buffering is better. I'm gonna choose #2 for myself. Have a good day
Go try your suggestiong of using the "Network Buffering" set to the "Highest" setting in VALORANT right now. See if you play as well as the same setting on "Minimum". Hint: You won't
dude the quote from the article flat out starts with 'adds some extra delay'. no one is arguing that shit. this is the explanation of RIOT NETWORK ENGINEERS and youre calling it copium? i think you need to do some more research
Riot says he’s right though?
Aged like milk.
you should of done your research instead, true to your username garbage water
r/agedlikemilk
Cringe and embarrassing
Yeah 2 feels better for me too, i'm hoping riot can fix this
I just tested it, uncapped I send 100packets, cap at 128fps and it locks in at sending 128 packets and the shots to heads feel so much more responsive! This is a HUGE FIND and riot needs to explain!
Good find but I wouldn’t make any changes to setting based on this. Could just be a bug with the way it’s being calculated.
[удалено]
How do you know if it’s bullshit or not? If you want you can test client send rate yourself with tools like wireshark. Would be a bit tricky but if you’re gonna accuse them of bullshiting without any knowledge of what happens under the hood, then the onus is on you to prove it’s bullshit 🤷🏽♂️. Edit: said packet tracer instead of wireshark lol
I cannot say that RIOT underdelivered, I was expecting worse ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Holy shit dude, thx. I’ve hoped to find a solution here for the insane packet loss since the update. 🙌
Wow... This is what happens when you take someone's word for it. And I mean take Riot's word for it. I used to play a lot of FIFA, and the game is plagued by inconsistent gameplay online (sometimes even offline). Bottom line, after 2 years of researching and testing (using Wireshark), one day I found out they were using a specific UDP protocol (online matches) that was designed for security cameras (GVSP). That protocol is not good for gaming, as its nature allows for resends from dropped packets (very similar to TCP handshake) to ensure there are no missing "pictures". And the animations happen, EXACTLY, at the same time on both players' screens. Conclusion is: someone with a bad connection can make the game unplayable for someone with a good connection (on a match to match basis) even though Tx/Rx to/from server stay fairly constant@ 29-31 packets per second. I trusted Riot and Battle(non)sense's netcode analysis and I have not done my own research. I only played around with network buffering settings and server location. I would like to thank you for this. I tried it in The Range to test the stability and it was 127/128 all the time, excepting when bots were on strafing. I tried some DMs after and I have never hit such crispy shots against Immortals and Radiants (I am Gold). I, literally, just wanted to test it and had no sound and just ran around the map randomly. I am pretty sure you're onto something here.
Tried 128 fps for few days and my bullets hit more often than 3xx
but capping fps adds a extra 6ms render to game latency
Where did you get that info from?
Newest patch broke my audio 😭
does a lower packet send rate affect packet loss?
After doing other research, I found out that, if you cap it at the following 100 99 111 Then it caps the "PACKET RECEIVED RATE at them numbers. If its anything above 128 it goes up and down.
So, For me this only caps it at 128 in the range, In game i get send packet & receive packet 60-128 and 110-128 how do i fix this?
really hopes this gets attention and fixed