|
On September 19 2017 02:14 LV_426 wrote:
damn had ~18min game that lasted around 80min, 800apm crazy micro , better than slowest speed ^^
Lol. I was rewatching some of my old Iccup-replays a while ago and came across a game where I was playing unusually well. It made me look like a really good player; super sick micro and multitasking, always keeping minerals low. Then towards the end of the game me and my opponent started chatting about how incredibly awful the lag was. I knew it was too good to be true.  But if I ever want to impress someone and show off my "skill", I'd show that replay and then cut off right before the chatting begins. :D
|
most of my game are still unplayable vs kor. It's make me angry -_-
|
On September 20 2017 04:28 Holgerius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 02:14 LV_426 wrote:
damn had ~18min game that lasted around 80min, 800apm crazy micro , better than slowest speed ^^ Lol. I was rewatching some of my old Iccup-replays a while ago and came across a game where I was playing unusually well. It made me look like a really good player; super sick micro and multitasking, always keeping minerals low. Then towards the end of the game me and my opponent started chatting about how incredibly awful the lag was. I knew it was too good to be true. But if I ever want to impress someone and show off my "skill", I'd show that replay and then cut off right before the chatting begins. :D
didn't you hear, that's how they did all the OSL's and MSL's.
they were actually casting replays.
The games were actually played overnight before the event.
|
The ladder is completely fucking unplayable. If Blizzard needs to do testing then do it on a private server so we can actually play what we paid for.
|
Eh? What's your MMR? I've been playing all day and haven't really had a problem. Thought they turned it to 10 and it was working out pretty good for everyone.
|
Norway28664 Posts
for me, it's normally been playable with koreans. 12 extra high worked, 10 high worked. but today, 10 extra high was still super choppy, 5 games in a row.
|
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too.
|
On September 23 2017 07:16 iamho wrote:
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too.
I think BW games are p2p. You'll always have lag until Blizzard provides dedicated servers for hosting. E.g. how it is in SC2.
|
On September 23 2017 07:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
for me, it's normally been playable with koreans. 12 extra high worked, 10 high worked. but today, 10 extra high was still super choppy, 5 games in a row.
Mhm same here. Or well, 12 extra high didn't work out for me, but 10 on high worked just fine until today. Now every game has been super choppy despite extra high :/
|
So I gotta ask - I never had issues with iCCuP and ChaosLauncher, games were almost always extremely smooth. Why can't Blizzard emulate what ChaosLauncher did? I don't know much about networks, etc. but am curious how that was able to accomplish something so easily.
|
On September 24 2017 04:31 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 07:16 iamho wrote:
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too. I think BW games are p2p. You'll always have lag until Blizzard provides dedicated servers for hosting. E.g. how it is in SC2.
I don't understand how dedicated servers can improve the situation. The network signals between the players will still have to travel the same (in a best case scenario) or a longer distance.
|
On September 27 2017 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:
So I gotta ask - I never had issues with iCCuP and ChaosLauncher, games were almost always extremely smooth. Why can't Blizzard emulate what ChaosLauncher did? I don't know much about networks, etc. but am curious how that was able to accomplish something so easily.
accomplish what? u re lagging cuz you re playing koreans on L1.every player decided that L2 (tr8) is not good enough and is slower cuz they wanna follow the korean trend of playing with L1 with weak conections.since is a global matchmaking and the big player pool is coming from Korea almost 99 porcent of your oponents re koreans instead of picking a player close to your region close to your mmr.i love korea and i love kpop,but tr12 is more like a local thing. will never work global.
|
On September 27 2017 15:39 wimpwimpwimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 04:31 sc-darkness wrote:On September 23 2017 07:16 iamho wrote:
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too. I think BW games are p2p. You'll always have lag until Blizzard provides dedicated servers for hosting. E.g. how it is in SC2. I don't understand how dedicated servers can improve the situation. The network signals between the players will still have to travel the same (in a best case scenario) or a longer distance.
I'm not an expert in networking field, but I can throw couple of examples why dedicated server would be good idea.
1. In p2p scenario, if host hardware is bad, games will be horrible every time. With dedicated servers you can "dedicate" enough resources for the task to make the game run smooth. This _shouldn't_ be much of an issue nowadays since you can run BW/SC:R on a potato.
2. If you put server in the middle of two players, in best case scenario you could halve the latency, if the server would be half way distance wise. In p2p case host will have 0 ping to host player and X ping to other player. IIRC BW waits until everyone are on the same frame, that 0 ping doesn't get any advantage of it.
Player1 to player2 (p2p): 200ms
Server to Player1: 100ms
Server to Player2: 100ms
more information on https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20758816452#post-9
TL;DR dedicated server would improve multiplayer experience, but it comes with server maintenance costs. Amount of improvement of game quality is subjective. Top tier players could notice the difference as it enables more complex micro manouvers, if the player is good enough to execute them.
|
blizzard MUST add a function which makes it like TR12 same server players and TR8-10 at other server players ...
cant be that fucking hard to check if players are from different servers before
|
Ladder did feel more responsive than turn rate 8 (I started at turn rate 8 for testing and I really did not like it).
I played against a few koreans at what felt like turn rate above 8 with no lag, but I have a small sample of games so we will have to see later on.
|
On September 27 2017 16:39 nukkuj wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 15:39 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On September 24 2017 04:31 sc-darkness wrote:On September 23 2017 07:16 iamho wrote:
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too. I think BW games are p2p. You'll always have lag until Blizzard provides dedicated servers for hosting. E.g. how it is in SC2. I don't understand how dedicated servers can improve the situation. The network signals between the players will still have to travel the same (in a best case scenario) or a longer distance. I'm not an expert in networking field, but I can throw couple of examples why dedicated server would be good idea. 1. In p2p scenario, if host hardware is bad, games will be horrible every time. With dedicated servers you can "dedicate" enough resources for the task to make the game run smooth. This _shouldn't_ be much of an issue nowadays since you can run BW/SC:R on a potato. 2. If you put server in the middle of two players, in best case scenario you could halve the latency, if the server would be half way distance wise. In p2p case host will have 0 ping to host player and X ping to other player. IIRC BW waits until everyone are on the same frame, that 0 ping doesn't get any advantage of it. Player1 to player2 (p2p): 200ms Server to Player1: 100ms Server to Player2: 100ms more information on https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20758816452#post-9TL;DR dedicated server would improve multiplayer experience, but it comes with server maintenance costs. Amount of improvement of game quality is subjective. Top tier players could notice the difference as it enables more complex micro manouvers, if the player is good enough to execute them.
It would also require a lot of reprogramming that Blizzard isn't going to do. It's not like they can do it with a few clicks or a few lines of code, it takes a lot of programming to switch it from a P2P to dedicated.
|
On September 27 2017 16:39 nukkuj wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 15:39 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On September 24 2017 04:31 sc-darkness wrote:On September 23 2017 07:16 iamho wrote:
I've got 3 different accounts one per race, lowest is 1300 highest is 1750, I have really bad lag on all of them even with extra high latency turned on every game. I'm playing other multiplayer games just fine and most of them are probably more bandwidth intensive than BW. Most people I've asked are playing in my region too. I think BW games are p2p. You'll always have lag until Blizzard provides dedicated servers for hosting. E.g. how it is in SC2. I don't understand how dedicated servers can improve the situation. The network signals between the players will still have to travel the same (in a best case scenario) or a longer distance. I'm not an expert in networking field, but I can throw couple of examples why dedicated server would be good idea. 1. In p2p scenario, if host hardware is bad, games will be horrible every time. With dedicated servers you can "dedicate" enough resources for the task to make the game run smooth. This _shouldn't_ be much of an issue nowadays since you can run BW/SC:R on a potato. 2. If you put server in the middle of two players, in best case scenario you could halve the latency, if the server would be half way distance wise. In p2p case host will have 0 ping to host player and X ping to other player. IIRC BW waits until everyone are on the same frame, that 0 ping doesn't get any advantage of it. Player1 to player2 (p2p): 200ms Server to Player1: 100ms Server to Player2: 100ms more information on https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20758816452#post-9TL;DR dedicated server would improve multiplayer experience, but it comes with server maintenance costs. Amount of improvement of game quality is subjective. Top tier players could notice the difference as it enables more complex micro manouvers, if the player is good enough to execute them.
I'm not so sure! From your link:
On August 26 2017 03:44 ExcaliburZ wrote:
(...)
Now, let's say you issue a command X somewhere along that timeline. The distance between the X and the next | determines how long it takes for your command to get sent to the other players. And for the command to get executed, it has to take another full turn so that it can come back to you as validated by the other players in the game.
Time [-----------------------one second------------------------------]
TR08 [-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------]
TR16 [---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---]
(...)
Which means, that with the current p2p based system, before a command can be executed, first, some time will pass until the end of the current turn, secondly, the information about a player's commands in a given turn has to be sent to his opponent, and thirdly, the acknowledgement of his opponent's reception has to be sent all the way back to him.
Dedicated servers won't change the fact that commands would need to be acknowledged before they can be executed, and for this to be achieved, signals need to be sent all the way to the other player and back again. The signals need to be sent the same distance, or longer, if there's not a server somewhere along the shortest route between the players, and the same, or a higher, amount of latency needs to be used in order for the game not to lag.
By the way, ExcaliburZ's post seems self contradictory to me in that, in the section of it I quoted above, a ping of 125 ms seems to be required for TR8 gaming, but towards the end of the post, it says tr8 requires a slower ping of 250 ms.
|
On September 27 2017 16:39 nukkuj wrote:
1. In p2p scenario, if host hardware is bad, games will be horrible every time. With dedicated servers you can "dedicate" enough resources for the task to make the game run smooth. This _shouldn't_ be much of an issue nowadays since you can run BW/SC:R on a potato.
I wonder if there are any HW network components that are damaged enough to cause serious problems to consumers.
Network cards are probably the strongest thing in a computer and outlive any other component.
On September 27 2017 16:39 nukkuj wrote:
2. If you put server in the middle of two players, in best case scenario you could halve the latency
No, that's not true.
Putting a server in the middle doesn't do anything in the current implementation (that is, each player keeps the entire memory foodprint of the other players and sync them).
The best case would be equal or minimal above the p2p system since you have each "halves" of the player connection and then route the connection (which you might want to track to see who disconnects)
|
On September 27 2017 18:10 Drake wrote:
blizzard MUST add a function which makes it like TR12 same server players and TR8-10 at other server players ...
cant be that fucking hard to check if players are from different servers before
![[image loading]](http://cdn.softwaretestinghelp.com/wp-content/qa/uploads/2013/09/project-planning-dilbert.gif)
+ Show Spoiler +If you ever worked in a large software corporation like Blizzard it's bureaucratic and can take an eternity over what simple decisions should be made. You often have to wait for that weekly meeting before you can make that suggestion to your team over "hey what if we made it so the server checks the network latency between the two players and auto adjust turn rate based on that?" Then if the project manager agrees with that idea, he or she needs to forward this to the project lead who will then need to discuss with the software and business analysts whether to make the final decision. Then when they approve it, it can take weeks until you're directed to work on this since you at the moment you have other work to do. Then you need to spend days having your work that you've done documented ad nauseam so that the software analysts will have something to do with their time, then you have to forward your changes to the testers which often takes longer than it should, then the results get reported back and if there are no bugs the project manager can decide whether to push this in the next update. Anyway, blame it on workplace bureaucracy and busywork. This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the actual fix that needs to be applied. There's an entire comic strip called Dilbert devoted to this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
