BF2S Forums the effect of long player names cause lag.

Riddick51PB wrote:

SAS-Lt.Phoenix: bullsh!t is one word.  if you're wrong on that, then why should we believe you?

if you hate me, that is fine.  but you should understand that hating me has no merit in this debate.  you'll need to bring a strong game to prove your point worthy.

lol who cares what is this, english class? do i really give a fuck? stop changing the subject, you bullshitter

Villham: And at no point did I say that you did say anything else. Just that if you believe Riddicks theory, then you need to do more studying.


Any professional software engineer knows that you do not send information that you do not need to send.

When a player first connects to a server, they will be assigned an ID, this ID and the playername will then be sent to each client.

Not much data transfer there - even if everybody had 22character names, 63*22=a whopping 1386 Bytes (1.35KB)

Someone who somehow manages to get a BF2 server running on a 486 over a 56K connection might notice that.

Commercial servers certainly won't give one jot, your computer almost certainly doesn't give one jot - they're routinely sending far far more between each other.

Now, whenever someone gets a kill all that will be sent is that ID, not the full playername.

And so, how much data does this ID represent?

Well, 1byte can hold 256 unique values - we only need 64.

So, that's 63x1byte = 63bytes!!!!

That's NOTHING (between 0.42% and 0.63% to be precise) compared to the between 10000 and 15000 bytes that are being sent back and forth throughout the entire time you're playing!!!!


Riddick: You are the only one looking air-headed and loopy. You're theory is wrong. Accept it. Move on.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-05 14:05:14)

ftw! HUD_HUD_KILLEDBY_KILLS        §0#PLAYERNAME1# [§1#WEAPON#§0] #PLAYERNAME2#

You do know that bf2 automatically cuts the Name off after 10 characters right?

If you don't use proper punctuation, how can you criticize about improper grammar to others?

Localization file. ^^ What he said.

Riddick51PB wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Riddick: You are the only one looking air-headed and loopy.

you can't use my wording to further your own cause.

I don't have a 'cause'.

Riddick51PB wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

You're theory is wrong. Accept it. Move on.

horrible grammar.  you should have used: "Your theory is..."

if you screw up on grammar, why should we believe your reasoning?

You know, you're incredibly infantile for a 45year old.

So, I make one small, extremely common, grammatical error. Big deal. The important part is the reasoning. Your reasoning is incorrect. Mine is correct. You lose. Move on. Get over it.

(Oh, and you might want to try using capitals at the start of sentences when you're picking someone up on their grammer...)

Riddick51PB wrote:

BigmacK wrote:

I don't believe you.

that doesn't offend me.  what is important is that it is true, regardless of who presents it.

even if the server compresses your 32-Byte player name down to 16 Bytes, it still has to compress it which is causing add'l lag on the server, because it must compress it.

if it doesn't compress it, then it has to transfer the entire 32 byte player name across the internet to all 64 players in the server.  if both of you have 32 byte player names, then it has to xmit 64 bytes to cover both of you.

VicktorVauhn wrote:

With all the lines of code nessisary to keep up with the positions of moving players, shots fired, and where they hit is an extra 10 charicters really gonna take that long to proccess?

if all 64 players do that, then it is 640 bytes, or almost 1 kilobyte of data for each kill.  that's a lot of data.

it's not rocket science.

how in the hell is 640 bytes almost 1 kilobyte?  1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes...  640 is closer to half a kilo than a full kilo...  you suck at math and your theory is awful.

-TL- wrote:

If long player names cause significant lag, me typing
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
repeatedly over chat should lag out the server, but I've never noticed it if it does.

And, in fact, this will cause some bandwidth to be used up with pointless chat-spam - particularly if it's done over the all-chat... This is because, unlike the player names, this text is actually sent from your client to the server and then on to all the other clients.

You're suggesting that a single alpha-numeric character is = to 1 byte? You sir, are gay.

This entire thread is completely pointless. I've monitored the upload and download rates in BF2, and they both hover around 10,000-15,000 Bytes. A long name (20 or so characters) will add about 10 Bytes, or .06 % to the bandwidth needed, if you killed one person a second.

Also keep in mind the temporary lag we all know and hate is caused because your computer temporarily is trying to send more than the connection allows. 10 more bytes is not going to affect that at all (The very worst broadband is about 256,000 Bytes/second either way).

So basically don't even waste your time registering the name. Seriously.

Darky wrote:

You're suggesting that a single alpha-numeric character is = to 1 byte? You sir, are gay.

Is that aimed at me? If so, you sir, are an idiot.

Some systems do use 2bytes - those designed to work on any computer anywhere in the world, no matter what language, but, generally, 1 alphanumeric character=1byte.

It's called ASCII and has been around almost since the dawn of computers.

And even if BF2 does use 2byte characters, my point still stands - player names are not, I repeat, NOT sent to and from the server every time someone gets a kill. To do that would be ludicrous and beyond even the crappiest coding that EA/Dice could produce on one of their worst days.

Anyhoo, as others have said, the original poster is clearly just an attention seeking troll and I for one, having already stated the truth of the matter several times, will have nothing more to do with this thread.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-08 08:32:56)