|
Update: Blizzard changes turn rate to 10 on Monday, 18 September.
Blizzard increases turn rate to 12 for ladder as an experimental change. As far as I know, turn rate should result in smoother games (less lag). However, this might mean you are matched against less players if their ping is believed to be bad enough (needs confirmation).
Eventually, Blizzard will change turn rate to 10, then back to 8. They are just trying to see what is optimal. 
Greetings Commanders, Executors, and Cerebrates,
StarCraft: Remastered launched with matchmaker set to turn rate 8, and based on community feedback we want to explore using a higher setting.
So, it’s time for the Frontier League to live up to its name. We added better data gathering of connection quality with 1.20.5, and we will start adjusting and monitoring turn rate for global matchmaking to find the optimal setting.
We will start at 12 and make our way back to 8. Data is only a source of quantitative knowledge though. We will also be looking for qualitative community feedback. Here is the adjustment schedule:
Turn Rate 12: Thursday 2:30 pm PDT
Turn Rate 10: TBD
Together, we will converge on a setting that plays best globally. There may be other measures we explore based on how this phase goes, but we believe this is the best first step. We’ll use this thread as basecamp for feedback and to update on changes from our end.
Cheers,
Classic Games
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20759185815
|
Cool. Hopefully something that makes everyone happy will emerge
|
|
|
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER.
|
if you increase turn rate, this will make the lag worse for global matching, right?
so its going to be worse for a while?
higher turn rate increases lag if the connection between the players has delay, it makes units respond faster but only works without slowing the game down if the connections are fast enough at responding to each other
so making a fixed rate 12 while keeping global matchmaking will make it less playable for now, a step back?
it seems obvious, unless there has been some kind of network code change or whatever (which can't really fix latency issues between two connections anyway past the base threshold that just exists..), that increasing turn rate now while keeping the matchmaking global will only make the ladder situation worse, with more unplayable games and the whole MMR and ladder experience which is already and still quite buggy, worse... until a TBD date where it will start coming back closer to how bad it was before lol
if the MM is global, the turn rate should obviously be adaptive, and even probably matches cancelled/not confirmed if the connection is too bad for a low turn rate anyway
[OFC its better to play with better turn rate, but its even more important not to have lag cause then you don't want to play that game T_T]
|
On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER.
I'll try the new patch now, have only played actively before. Hope it works out, but of course if it is unplayable they should switch back.
|
On September 16 2017 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
if you increase turn rate, this will make the lag worse for global matching, right?
so its going to be worse for a while?
higher turn rate increases lag if the connection between the players has delay, it makes units respond faster but only works without slowing the game down if the connections are fast enough at responding to each other
so making a fixed rate 12 while keeping global matchmaking will make it less playable for now, a step back?
it seems obvious, unless there has been some kind of network code change or whatever (which can't really fix latency issues between two connections anyway past the base threshold that just exists..), that increasing turn rate now while keeping the matchmaking global will only make the ladder situation worse, with more unplayable games and the whole MMR and ladder experience which is already and still quite buggy, worse... until a TBD date where it will start coming back closer to how bad it was before lol
if the MM is global, the turn rate should obviously be adaptive, and even probably matches cancelled/not confirmed if the connection is too bad for a low turn rate anyway
don't really get why blizz is appealing to 5% of player base to antagonize 95% base. Koreans are literally raging at blizzard because of this. They are demand 12 or 16 and not a decrease in TR.
|
On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER.
I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something.
I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default.
|
On September 16 2017 03:16 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER. I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something. I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default.
thats being so selfish. why should koreans afree to that when they are the 95% base?
|
On September 16 2017 03:16 Shinokuki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
if you increase turn rate, this will make the lag worse for global matching, right?
so its going to be worse for a while?
higher turn rate increases lag if the connection between the players has delay, it makes units respond faster but only works without slowing the game down if the connections are fast enough at responding to each other
so making a fixed rate 12 while keeping global matchmaking will make it less playable for now, a step back?
it seems obvious, unless there has been some kind of network code change or whatever (which can't really fix latency issues between two connections anyway past the base threshold that just exists..), that increasing turn rate now while keeping the matchmaking global will only make the ladder situation worse, with more unplayable games and the whole MMR and ladder experience which is already and still quite buggy, worse... until a TBD date where it will start coming back closer to how bad it was before lol
if the MM is global, the turn rate should obviously be adaptive, and even probably matches cancelled/not confirmed if the connection is too bad for a low turn rate anyway don't really get why blizz is appealing to 5% of player base to antagonize 95% base. Koreans are literally raging at blizzard because of this. They are demand 12 or 16 and not a decrease in TR.
so the global is the problem right? global MM bad idea?
or, again, adaptive.... (is it rly so hard to program a latency test ? -_-)
|
On September 16 2017 03:19 Shinokuki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:16 blade55555 wrote:On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER. I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something. I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default. thats being so selfish. why should koreans afree to that when they are the 95% base?
- Why should people not be self interested? This is a hobby we paid to play, and wouldnt care about if it was open to us, so?
- Koreans are actually not 95% of the base
- Koreans 'suffering' on 10 TR is no big deal, its just slightly less than ideal and they still have private servers
-We do not, the previous private ladder is dead, and 12 destroys many peoples abilities to get games at all.
Its the difference between some people getting less than ideal conditions, vs some people in idealized conditions and other paying customers having no where to go/excruciatingly long waits for certain ranks.
|
Well match making should be viable for everyone. If it were up to me the servers would be separate. There would be a US/EU server (I think most EU/US connections are good, correct me if I am wrong) and Korea would have their own server.
Global matchmaking is sadly not a great thing to do because you will never appease everyone. If you split them, then 12 turn rate shouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep it, then there are lag issues for Koreans who play against non koreans and vice versa.
I would play on the Korean server because I don't have the lag issues with most koreans, but someone from EU wouldn't have to worry about matching a Korean where they will lag really badly anyway.
Or the best solution would be adaptive turn rate if they keep Global matchmaking. Either way something will have to change unless 10 ends up working out really well.
|
On September 16 2017 03:23 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:19 Shinokuki wrote:On September 16 2017 03:16 blade55555 wrote:On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER. I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something. I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default. thats being so selfish. why should koreans afree to that when they are the 95% base? - Why should people not be self interested? This is a hobby we paid to play, and wouldnt care about if it was open to us, so? - Koreans are actually not 95% of the base - Koreans 'suffering' on 10 TR is no big deal, its just slightly less than ideal and they still have private servers -We do not, the previous private ladder is dead, and 12 destroys many peoples abilities to get games at all. Its the difference between some people getting less than ideal conditions, vs some people in idealized conditions and other paying customers having no where to go/excruciatingly long waits for certain ranks.
it is a big deal. You are basically destroying zvt balance and decreasing the already rare zerg race ... i don't get why you guys are so selfish
|
I think arguing about turn rate is the wrong approach here. To resolve lag, we need dedicated servers for hosting games. Exactly how SC2 seems to work. There's very little lag there. It will probably not be done by Blizzard.
|
On September 16 2017 03:16 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER. I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something. I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default.
Pretty much this for me. I never have lag issues on StarCraft: R. West Coast Best Coast!
On September 16 2017 03:40 sc-darkness wrote:I think arguing about turn rate is the wrong approach here. To resolve lag, we need dedicated servers for hosting. Exactly how SC2 seems to work. There's very little lag there.
agreed 100%
|
On September 16 2017 03:23 blade55555 wrote:
Well match making should be viable for everyone. If it were up to me the servers would be separate. There would be a US/EU server (I think most EU/US connections are good, correct me if I am wrong) and Korea would have their own server.
Global matchmaking is sadly not a great thing to do because you will never appease everyone. If you split them, then 12 turn rate shouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep it, then there are lag issues for Koreans who play against non koreans and vice versa.
I would play on the Korean server because I don't have the lag issues with most koreans, but someone from EU wouldn't have to worry about matching a Korean where they will lag really badly anyway.
Or the best solution would be adaptive turn rate if they keep Global matchmaking. Either way something will have to change unless 10 ends up working out really well.
I agree. Global ladder rankings is fine, but servers should be separated. Or even the old WC3 version of 4 ladders (East, West, Euro and Asia) was great, maybe expand apon a bit more but that is fine. I loved it because I could smurf on Euro/Asia, get high level with a bit of lag then come back to US servers and just dominate with smooth lag.
People who want to better themselves can go play on the korean server on their own with the understanding lag will be tougher.. but lag shouldn't be forced on everyone if they only want to play local games.
Hopefully they read TL forums and think about this.
|
On September 16 2017 03:40 sc-darkness wrote:
I think arguing about turn rate is the wrong approach here. To resolve lag, we need dedicated servers for hosting games. Exactly how SC2 seems to work. There's very little lag there. It will probably not be done by Blizzard.
they would need to literally rewrite parts of broodwar for that to be possible
|
12 turn rate is great, all we need to play on proper latency with koreans is good PAID VPN. It has worked on fish server before, if blizzard didnt fuck up things it still should be working well.
|
couldn't they just dynamically set the turn rate based on latency between the two players?
for examples two koreans could be playing in 12 or even 16, but a korean vs american would be playing in 8 or 10
|
On September 16 2017 03:51 Trutaacz wrote:
12 turn rate is great, all we need to play on proper latency with koreans is good PAID VPN. It has worked on fish server before, if blizzard didnt fuck up things it still should be working well.
and vpn to play vs china asia in general africa america? it makes sense for high lvl players to pay vpn to train vs koreans .except that koteans dont want to train with foreigners,remembrr low latency hack made vpn useless.
|
Thats why global ladder is wrong by definition, there should never be that kinda thing in BW, because this game is not prepared to have non-lag games with proper latency. That's why players who want to play with koreans should pay just some pocket money for VPN and play on KR server if they want to and majority of low level and mid level players will enjoy playing on Europe. Low latency hack was faster than 12 turn rate is.
|
yeah I agree ^
plus you know, the "low and mid" players on europe, when they get better, they may get high level so... its not like there are no high level players outside of korea to match against each other. If the high level players play the mid player more often, the mid players will get better etc lol
so global ladder is probably a bad idea
|
On September 16 2017 03:51 Trutaacz wrote:
12 turn rate is great, all we need to play on proper latency with koreans is good PAID VPN. It has worked on fish server before, if blizzard didnt fuck up things it still should be working well.
What good paid VPN do you use?
|
On September 16 2017 04:42 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:51 Trutaacz wrote:
12 turn rate is great, all we need to play on proper latency with koreans is good PAID VPN. It has worked on fish server before, if blizzard didnt fuck up things it still should be working well. What good paid VPN do you use?
None at the moment. I was using a VPN when i was playing fish, for details u can ask on defiler.ru chat.
|
Do Europeans struggle with north american and south americans as well? Is this just a foreigner to korea issue?
|
On September 16 2017 05:02 Dazed. wrote:
Do Europeans struggle with north american and south americans as well? Is this just a foreigner to korea issue?
I have to set high or extra high vs. Europeans, but not as bad as some Koreans. Some Koreans I can play with on 12 extra high just fine. Some Koreans I couldn't even play against on 8 extra high.
|
Korea (South)11572 Posts
living in korea, i sometimes wish i could play vs a non-korean. even when i played on useast during US times it was all vs koreans
|
On September 16 2017 03:30 Shinokuki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:23 Dazed. wrote:On September 16 2017 03:19 Shinokuki wrote:On September 16 2017 03:16 blade55555 wrote:On September 16 2017 02:53 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
None of u re playing the game or reading blizzard forums right? It is A DIsASTER. I am playing the game and it's been awesome for me. But I live in a good part of the world where I don't lag too much with players (unless their from peru or something). I do think 12 is too high, specially for people playing against Koreans from EU or something. I hope 10 turn rate works better for everyone and that can be the default. thats being so selfish. why should koreans afree to that when they are the 95% base? - Why should people not be self interested? This is a hobby we paid to play, and wouldnt care about if it was open to us, so? - Koreans are actually not 95% of the base - Koreans 'suffering' on 10 TR is no big deal, its just slightly less than ideal and they still have private servers -We do not, the previous private ladder is dead, and 12 destroys many peoples abilities to get games at all. Its the difference between some people getting less than ideal conditions, vs some people in idealized conditions and other paying customers having no where to go/excruciatingly long waits for certain ranks. it is a big deal. You are basically destroying zvt balance and decreasing the already rare zerg race ... i don't get why you guys are so selfish
there's nothing selfish about wanting to play a video game you paid for
asking for the alternative where a bunch of people are literally not able to play just so koreans don't pop blood vessels being "forced" to play on less-than-ideal conditions is what's selfish here
|
i just played a couple games on USWest and it was extremely laggy and the opponent's typed in Korean and said they are on Korean server. What is going on?!
|
But even with vpn we need to adjust latency to extra high with kor for turn rate 12, at least for me and i have a good internet. On the other side 12 turn rate is perfect for anything that is europe or america. Even though playing korean is cool i think playing turn rate 16 is even better
|
On September 16 2017 09:23 CaucasianAsian wrote:
living in korea, i sometimes wish i could play vs a non-korean. even when i played on useast during US times it was all vs koreans
how does that work? if i get on korea its still gonna put me against non koreans when i que there?
|
Yes it will. Unless there are no foreigners around your rank then it will put you against Koreans. Depends on who's playing and their location. I get a good amount of Koreans now (which I like), but if I were to lose 5-6 games in a row I would prob not play any until I got back to where I was. Feels like 2k is when you start playing them a lot.
|
Welp. 50% of my games against koreans were already slide-shows on TR8. Considering like 80% of the opponents are koreans this is going to suck. Why can't we have some sort of opt in feature? Like if I cant get games (too long search time) I can check a box to include korean server as well, and vice versa.
|
yea, this is def going to hurt those of us who already have trouble finding good games at TR8. Being in China, it's def a problem for me and I think ladder will just become unplayable like this..... That's a shame, I wish they would just do something to improve the lag (aka server hosted games, but yea i know that's never going to happen).
|
they not "eventually" make it back, they WILL do make it to 10 (dont know time) its a test phase
|
On September 16 2017 16:22 merz wrote:
Welp. 50% of my games against koreans were already slide-shows on TR8. Considering like 80% of the opponents are koreans this is going to suck. Why can't we have some sort of opt in feature? Like if I cant get games (too long search time) I can check a box to include korean server as well, and vice versa.
i think vice verca is hte probolems, there is not a real reason for any korean then to ever check the box ^^
|
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time.
|
From yesterday evening i had most of games with lag againts korean. Before everything was ok (like 90% games no lag)
|
On September 16 2017 18:06 wimpwimpwimp wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time.
It's called a ping and if the ping between players is poor they shouldn't even allow you to play.
|
On September 16 2017 18:58 iopq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 18:06 wimpwimpwimp wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time. It's called a ping and if the ping between players is poor they shouldn't even allow you to play.
Is it this simple, though?
|
They keep working on Broodwar, they continue trying to make things even better, thats always good news, the game for me at least has not been as smooth as i was hoping so i think i will try playing later when things get figure out or maybe ill just keep on playing since the issue isnt that bad, i mean its not like its 100% unplayable so yeah fuck it, see u guys in the ladder.
|
On September 16 2017 17:41 Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 16:22 merz wrote:
Welp. 50% of my games against koreans were already slide-shows on TR8. Considering like 80% of the opponents are koreans this is going to suck. Why can't we have some sort of opt in feature? Like if I cant get games (too long search time) I can check a box to include korean server as well, and vice versa. i think vice verca is hte probolems, there is not a real reason for any korean then to ever check the box ^^
Yeah you're definitely right on that. Didn't quite think that one through.
EDIT:
How about tying the account to the server they are created on though (But make it so West/East/EU share otherwise the player base is simply too small I guess). This way you can make an Korea-account if you want to be able to play koreans and also this would favour the VPN-solution that trutactz talks about.
|
On September 16 2017 18:58 iopq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 18:06 wimpwimpwimp wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time. It's called a ping and if the ping between players is poor they shouldn't even allow you to play.
I think CS: GO lets you set maximum ping. Maybe BW should be the same. Of course, max has to be reasonable not too low to avoid cheats.
|
United States4883 Posts
On September 16 2017 03:40 sc-darkness wrote:
I think arguing about turn rate is the wrong approach here. To resolve lag, we need dedicated servers for hosting games. Exactly how SC2 seems to work. There's very little lag there. It will probably not be done by Blizzard.
Nooooooooo, I don't want to play with the 300 people on US East for the rest of my life.
|
I want to live in a world where I can play versus koreans under 100 ping 
|
On September 17 2017 00:11 raff100 wrote:I want to live in a world where I can play versus koreans under 100 ping
it would be nice  adaptive turn rate test ftw I say^^
but is that also not what most koreans want, maybe @_@
|
turn rate = big nonsense now again lag.
|
Well I've been trying it out today.
Koreans on TR12 absolutely does not work for me at least. Even if setting on Extra high latency. I have to quit the games because I can't be bothered to play a slide-show game that normally would take 10-15 minutes but now takes 30-40 minutes.
|
Norway28591 Posts
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10?
|
On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10?
As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds.
|
On September 16 2017 03:23 Dazed. wrote:
- Koreans are actually not 95% of the base
Proof?
|
On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds.
It's not that simple though. They would have to recode a lot of the way the networking works right now. If it were super easy to do I imagine they would do this.
|
On September 17 2017 02:57 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds. It's not that simple though. They would have to recode a lot of the way the networking works right now. If it were super easy to do I imagine they would do this.
Probably, I'm not saying it's easy to do. It's just necessary. They probably won't see profit in that though.
|
On September 17 2017 03:02 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 02:57 blade55555 wrote:On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds. It's not that simple though. They would have to recode a lot of the way the networking works right now. If it were super easy to do I imagine they would do this. Probably, I'm not saying it's easy to do. It's just necessary. They probably won't see profit in that though.
I haven't played SC2 since 2011. Is it any better?
|
On September 17 2017 03:25 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 03:02 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 02:57 blade55555 wrote:On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds. It's not that simple though. They would have to recode a lot of the way the networking works right now. If it were super easy to do I imagine they would do this. Probably, I'm not saying it's easy to do. It's just necessary. They probably won't see profit in that though. I haven't played SC2 since 2011. Is it any better?
In terms of lag, yeah. I don't remember having much lag in SC2. It has other problems but lag isn't one of them, but let's not discuss that here. I'm just saying Blizzard can do better if they want to.
|
On September 17 2017 02:24 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 03:23 Dazed. wrote:
- Koreans are actually not 95% of the base
Proof?
This afternoon I logged in to play a custom map with some friends .There were like :
500 players on US west
300 on US east
600 on EU
20k on KR
8k on Fish
5k on Asia
BW is Korean property and this is not a news
However can anyone tell me what's the point of global matchmaking instead of sc2 matchmaking?
|
this is all they have to do with their system:
1. test latency between the two players
2. adjust turn rate based on this latency
3. display turn rate on the match found screen
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/a0q39QB.jpg)
|
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate?
|
On September 17 2017 04:10 raff100 wrote:
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate?
For most people in most circumstances, yes. There are always exceptions though.
|
On September 17 2017 04:10 raff100 wrote:
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate?
i usually have to set it to turn rate 4 if i make 3v3 or 4v4 team games since no one bothers to port forward. on korean server i can do turn rate 8 for team games because they remember to port forward.
|
Norway28591 Posts
I'm pretty certain if someone has failed to port forward in a team game, it's gonna be completely unplayable on turn rate 4 (or 2) as well.
|
On September 17 2017 03:59 raff100 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 02:24 207aicila wrote:On September 16 2017 03:23 Dazed. wrote:
- Koreans are actually not 95% of the base
Proof? This afternoon I logged in to play a custom map with some friends .There were like : 500 players on US west 300 on US east 600 on EU 20k on KR 8k on Fish 5k on Asia BW is Korean property and this is not a news Not disputing the game is primarily comprised of koreans; disputing that its 95%,
The numbers you gave, if were assuming eu/west/east are all foreigners [not a fair assumption] and all of asia server is non korean [ not a fair assumption, but it should be majority non korean] then the korean population was only 82% of what was active at the time, and that was during a period of the day where most foreigners would not be on, but a lot of koreans would be.
Same metric for right now:
west: 1715
east: 1000
euro: 600
kr+fish: 4207
asia: 924
This would make the east/west/euro gateways a hairsbreath under 40% of the active population right now, based on the previous assumptions.
Obviously koreans are the overwhelming majority, which was not a point I was disputing, but rather I was disputing that they are virtually everyone, and there is no foreign community to which any of us foreigners should be concerned about. Like, I spent 15 dollars for match making and im being told that im selfish for being concerned with whether or not I get my product, what the fuck is that? Arrogance and condescension wrapped up in a convenient, let us say "untruth" about demographics [which, honestly, whatever the populations levels were, that wouldnt be an argument for foreigners throwing themselves on their swords for the korean community].
|
On September 17 2017 04:49 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 04:10 raff100 wrote:
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate? i usually have to set it to turn rate 4 if i make 3v3 or 4v4 team games since no one bothers to port forward. on korean server i can do turn rate 8 for team games because they remember to port forward.
Wait if you port forward you get less lag?
|
On September 17 2017 08:54 Ethelis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 04:49 Lazare1969 wrote:On September 17 2017 04:10 raff100 wrote:
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate? i usually have to set it to turn rate 4 if i make 3v3 or 4v4 team games since no one bothers to port forward. on korean server i can do turn rate 8 for team games because they remember to port forward. Wait if you port forward you get less lag?
in custom games yes, provided everyone else in the game has also portforwarded. this doesn't affect matchmaking. see http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Port_Forwarding
|
On September 17 2017 03:41 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 03:25 Ancestral wrote:On September 17 2017 03:02 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 02:57 blade55555 wrote:On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds. It's not that simple though. They would have to recode a lot of the way the networking works right now. If it were super easy to do I imagine they would do this. Probably, I'm not saying it's easy to do. It's just necessary. They probably won't see profit in that though. I haven't played SC2 since 2011. Is it any better? In terms of lag, yeah. I don't remember having much lag in SC2. It has other problems but lag isn't one of them, but let's not discuss that here. I'm just saying Blizzard can do better if they want to.
Well the "could do better" part is exactly why I brought it up.
I'm making no comment on either game, just for whether there's a precedent for a Blizzard game being more playable in terms of latency/lag.
I really hope they do fix it up. The remaster has so much potential, and is already good, but it could be great.
|
On September 17 2017 09:08 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 08:54 Ethelis wrote:On September 17 2017 04:49 Lazare1969 wrote:On September 17 2017 04:10 raff100 wrote:
Is the game playable under 8 turn rate? i usually have to set it to turn rate 4 if i make 3v3 or 4v4 team games since no one bothers to port forward. on korean server i can do turn rate 8 for team games because they remember to port forward. Wait if you port forward you get less lag? in custom games yes, provided everyone else in the game has also portforwarded. this doesn't affect matchmaking. see http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Port_Forwarding
Huh didn't know that. Thanks.
|
ya the hours ive been playing everygame is vs a korean and its unplayable.
|
On September 16 2017 18:06 wimpwimpwimp wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time.
They are working on it dude, they are working on it. Pete Stilwell already mentioned this a month ago. Matt Sherman 2-3 days ago also talked about this, they are working on it. Read blizzard's forums, blue posts, do some research, go play some games and leave them some feedback. They are looking for qualitative community feedback
Pete Stilwell on turn rate: Turn Rate
Matt Sherman on data gathering of connection quality: Turn Rate 12
Matt Sherman on the same issue (hours ago): Turn Rate 10
|
On September 16 2017 19:42 wimpwimpwimp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 18:58 iopq wrote:On September 16 2017 18:06 wimpwimpwimp wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard can't implement some kind of "lag and latency-simulation" during the search for a match.
When the engine has found an appropriate opponent mmr-wise, it could run a "mini game" between the two players off screen, cycle through the turn rates and latency settings, measure lag for each, and based upon the results decide if the match should happen and what turn rate should be used.
If they have a half decent understanding of what aspects of network performance affects lag, the "simulation" could probably be very minimal, and take only a very small amount of time. It's called a ping and if the ping between players is poor they shouldn't even allow you to play. Is it this simple, though?
They shouldn't ACTUALLY use the standard ping, but use the port that's open for StarCraft so that the packet doesn't get lost. But still, you can check the latency between two players before starting their game. You could pause the search and say "checking connection" and check the response times between packets. If more than one of them is outside the allowable range (>300 ms) then you find another opponent.
|
They fixed the lag a few days ago but since this turn rate thing has made it worse. Cmon Blizzard
|
They should just hire tec27 and implement the ShieldBattery way of doing things... As far as I understand they have a superior approach to this problem and a rewritten netcode...
|
On September 17 2017 19:00 Dante08 wrote:
They fixed the lag a few days ago but since this turn rate thing has made it worse. Cmon Blizzard
As I mentioned one post before you, they are working on it, whatever issue you may be facing is simply the result of the turn rate testing, things will get better eventually. Cmon Dante08.
|
Well the ladder is unplayable until tomorrow. I've had ~15 games today, 14 have been koreans and 2 of those games were playable on extra high latency, the rest were slideshows.
|
The lag is a definite issue right now. Most of my games vs Koreans are slideshows are merz pointed out. I've just been leaving my games - dropped like 100 pts already lol. It's funny though because at one point I started building a probe, walked to my kitchen and started boiling a pot of water for coffee, came back and my probe just finished.
|
On September 17 2017 08:28 Dazed. wrote:
Same metric for right now:
west: 1715
east: 1000
euro: 600
kr+fish: 4207
asia: 924
This would make the east/west/euro gateways a hairsbreath under 40% of the active population right now, based on the previous assumptions.
Dazed when you made this post it was 8 am in Korea of course not everyone is gonna be playing BW at that time...
But even when it's night or morning in Korea and prime time elsewhere, Korea still has more players than everyone else combined.
|
On September 17 2017 21:38 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 08:28 Dazed. wrote:
Same metric for right now:
west: 1715
east: 1000
euro: 600
kr+fish: 4207
asia: 924
This would make the east/west/euro gateways a hairsbreath under 40% of the active population right now, based on the previous assumptions.
Dazed when you made this post it was 8 am in Korea of course not everyone is gonna be playing BW at that time... But even when it's night or morning in Korea and prime time elsewhere, Korea still has more players than everyone else combined. Exactly my point. They clearly are the majority, but depending on what time of day you pick you can exaggerate the size of the korean population, or under exaggerate it, relative to everyone else.
|
On September 17 2017 05:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm pretty certain if someone has failed to port forward in a team game, it's gonna be completely unplayable on turn rate 4 (or 2) as well.
How true is this? Is it totally true, mostly true, or only passingly true?
2v2s definitely lag for me but they're not unplayable, and I always create. Sometimes they're just fine.
I haven't done anything with port forwarding at all, nor do I have any idea how. I also play both at home and in my lab at the university.
|
On September 18 2017 08:29 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 21:38 207aicila wrote:On September 17 2017 08:28 Dazed. wrote:
Same metric for right now:
west: 1715
east: 1000
euro: 600
kr+fish: 4207
asia: 924
This would make the east/west/euro gateways a hairsbreath under 40% of the active population right now, based on the previous assumptions.
Dazed when you made this post it was 8 am in Korea of course not everyone is gonna be playing BW at that time... But even when it's night or morning in Korea and prime time elsewhere, Korea still has more players than everyone else combined. Exactly my point. They clearly are the majority, but depending on what time of day you pick you can exaggerate the size of the korean population, or under exaggerate it, relative to everyone else.
You're just looking at raw numbers though.
The foreigners playing broodwar at this point are probably more regular and more committed so you have a lot of the same people playing day to day.
Korea has a much larger casual population and people that just play at PC Bangs with friends. Of the 20,000 people on Korea at any time in peak hours, something like 12,000 of them are different on any given day.
It's safe to say that Korea really is 95% of the BW playing population.
|
On September 17 2017 20:17 danbel1005 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 19:00 Dante08 wrote:
They fixed the lag a few days ago but since this turn rate thing has made it worse. Cmon Blizzard As I mentioned one post before you, they are working on it, whatever issue you may be facing is simply the result of the turn rate testing, things will get better eventually. Cmon Dante08.
This 'they're working on it' excuse is bullshit. This isn't an alpha or a beta, this is a product that we paid money for. I highly doubt they were unaware of these problems before launching so it's inexcusable to go along with the launch anyway and then just say they're working on it. Further, if they really do need to mess around with settings to test solutions then they should throw up a PTR server and have us test on there the way literally every single other game of theirs does.
|
Well i've resorted to suggesting rock/paper/scissors now. Loser leaves. Currently up 3-0, RNG <3
|
On September 18 2017 16:23 merz wrote:
Well i've resorted to suggesting rock/paper/scissors now. Loser leaves. Currently up 3-0, RNG <3
how exactly are you proposing it to people who can't speak english?
|
On September 18 2017 16:49 abuse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 16:23 merz wrote:
Well i've resorted to suggesting rock/paper/scissors now. Loser leaves. Currently up 3-0, RNG <3 how exactly are you proposing it to people who can't speak english?
They know basic english.
"Rock/Paper/Scissor, loser leave OK?"
"OK"
"Ok on three 123 OK?"
"OK"
"123 R/P" etc.
|
Norway28591 Posts
On September 18 2017 14:20 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 05:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm pretty certain if someone has failed to port forward in a team game, it's gonna be completely unplayable on turn rate 4 (or 2) as well. How true is this? Is it totally true, mostly true, or only passingly true? 2v2s definitely lag for me but they're not unplayable, and I always create. Sometimes they're just fine. I haven't done anything with port forwarding at all, nor do I have any idea how. I also play both at home and in my lab at the university.
I've had issues with not having ports forwarded in the past. (I had a weird router, eventually I paid $20 from portforward.com to get it done). I was never able to be in a game with more than 1 other player. The not port forwarded games are like, one second takes 5 seconds and adjusting the latency makes no difference.
|
On September 18 2017 20:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 14:20 Ancestral wrote:On September 17 2017 05:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm pretty certain if someone has failed to port forward in a team game, it's gonna be completely unplayable on turn rate 4 (or 2) as well. How true is this? Is it totally true, mostly true, or only passingly true? 2v2s definitely lag for me but they're not unplayable, and I always create. Sometimes they're just fine. I haven't done anything with port forwarding at all, nor do I have any idea how. I also play both at home and in my lab at the university. I've had issues with not having ports forwarded in the past. (I had a weird router, eventually I paid $20 from portforward.com to get it done). I was never able to be in a game with more than 1 other player. The not port forwarded games are like, one second takes 5 seconds and adjusting the latency makes no difference.
Ahh. Thanks for the anecdote.
I wonder if it's some combination of (1) the remaster fixed some things (2) something changed with how routers usually work, and (3) I play in Wine on Linux, and Linux does something different.
It's definitely laggier 2v2 but not unplayable, just hangs for half a second every five seconds at worst.
Still wonder if I could make it better, but searching "port forward Linux" led me to some sites with some of the things I've understood the least in my entire life, and I do plenty of programming for grad school LOL.
|
There's UPDATE on first page that blizzard change turn rate from 12 to 10 today. But it's still not working for me. Too much lag. How about you guys?
|
You sure it's been changed? I know they are supposed to do it today but haven't said a time yet.
|
Personally I had no issue at all with turn rate 12. Didn't really notice a difference either though. Hopefully they got some good data.
|
blade55555 That's good point ! :D So they didn't do it yet probably :D
|
damn had ~18min game that lasted around 80min, 800apm crazy micro , better than slowest speed ^^
|
Turn rate 10 at 11:00 PDT. Which is NOW (I live in PDT time-zone),
|
Since the last patch, ladder has been totally unplayable for me.
1) Every game lags like crazy
2) it seems disconnects are no longer counted as losses???
I dropped a lot of points on ladder because people are disconnecting, they see 2 gate proxy - disc, they lost 2 reavers for free - disc, they lost their army - disc, lost nat - disc.
Over 1/2 of my wins have been disconnects with no stats. All of my losses have been removing points because I'm not disconnecting.
|
Welp, game is unplayable now. Good bloody job.
|
turn rate 12 was mostly great for me it felt like playing on lan most games, setting to extra high vs korea usually worked fine.
|
Jesus Christ it's completely unplayable now. Just make Korea Server TR 16 and everything else 8. I had like 2 laggy games in 200 games played on remastered, now it's super laggy every game.
|
Looks like all the europeans just cant play anerixa/korea regions damn
|
On September 17 2017 02:15 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
couldn't they just make the high and extra high be 'more high and extra high'? So people get 12 when it works but 12 extra high would actually be like 8 rather than like 10? As I suggested previously, the real solution is if Blizzard provides servers for hosting games. That's my opinion. It seems to work well for SC2. You'll almost never have better internet than some corporation like Blizzard. However, they can afford high download/upload speeds.
That's not a very good solution. In SC2, you can't play on the Korean server without very long delay from NA, so players are stuck on their own or nearby servers. It's the same effect as region locking the ladder, and without Koreans to play against there's no point in playing at all for many people.
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
tr10 works pretty well for me
|
haven't had any lag vs kors on TR10 (on low)
|
wasnt the TR set to 8 before? have had rarely lag on 8, lag rather often vs koreans on 12, not sure about 10
|
10 working great for me as well.
|
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.
|
Norway28591 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.
|
|
|
On September 28 2017 05:05 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +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 + 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.
I don't believe this is specific to software corporations. It's painfully slow change at my work, a large corporate insurance company. Slow as in, you suggest something, get the buyin at a meeting (that takes 3 months to set up), and it comes out a over a year later after you got the go ahead.
|
On September 28 2017 07:01 XCraftin4K wrote:
What's this turn rate?
I've been trying to hunt this down: What is the technical explanation for turn rate? Does anyone know?
|
|
|
Thanks for listening to public comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
