|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Now, one might wonder why I post this on the strategy forums, but in fact this could affect one's strategy and generic useful facts usually go in this subforum.
I. What is latency?
Latency is a wait command issued between "User Interface receives command" and "command is executed in-game". With high latency it's hard to micro because you have to micro in advance by like 0,5 seconds. However, there are actually two sources of latency: actual latency between peers (also called ping) and in-game latency setting.
II. Ping.
Ping is measured by sending a packet of information to the peer and measuring the time taken to receive response. It's being measured in milliseconds, so a ping of 100 means it takes 0,1 seconds to exchange information between peers. What effect does it have on the gameplay is not an easy question to answer. That's because the built-in latency system in StarCraft usually tends to compensate by creating artificial delay between command execution so that you never feel the ping. However, if ping exceeds the latency delay, the game becomes unstable - framerate drops and it becomes slower, but (and this is important) it might or it might not increase the command delay. So, in most cases, for high pings you'd want to increase the latency. Setting it to high is usually enough, in some cases, you need to set it to extra high, but that means you have a really bad connection to the peer and would want to find another playing partner.
III. Latency.
Now, to the most important part - there are actually four, not three latency settings:
- Extra High Latency
- High Latency
- Low Latency
- Single-player Latency
EDIT: It has been proven that there are more settings and Low Latency over B.net is different from low latency on LAN. The point is about LAN, though, so B.net will be left out of the boat at this point.
Now, the command delay for the last setting is zero. Yet, this is the only setting that has zero delay. What is important is that command delay for LAN latency is NOT zero and (this is purely observational, but should be within limit of error) has an equivalent ping of about 200. Yes, 200 milliseconds between issuing an order and it's execution. Is this large? I can say that it is. If you want to test the impact, create a UMS (it will not take longer than 10 minutes) that focuses on doing some precision micro, for example, dragoon mine defuse micro (Free - style, like in PP06) or zealot dance micro (move - hit - move). Run that map in single-player, practice for some time to succeed to some extent. Then, run the same map on UDP LAN. Feel the difference. It's there and it's significant.
IV. Conclusions.
1) Whenever you make or download a micro training UMS, don't play in sigle-player mode! The techniques you might take a hold on will not work online.
2) This game is a little harder than it seems and those micro feats done by the pros take abit more skill to do despite them "playing on LAN".
3) Average human reaction time to "slightly expected" event is about 300 milliseconds. Those 200 add up to a grand 500 which is quite a large time period for intense micro. So good micro is not only gained by fast hands, you need to expect stuff. The point of micro training is that you need to expect what will happen next, predict it, and react before it happened. If you make a reaver harass, for example, you want to pick up your reaver right after it fires. If you don't have the timings in your brain, it will take 300 ms to react to the reaver shot and 200 more for it to load into the shuttle. If you have the timings, you will order the pickup like 100 ms before the shot happens, saving you 400. Almost half a second. That tank might have fired in that time.
4) Maybe Blizzard should implement more LAN-friendly latency settings for StarCraft II, like a 50 ms latency which is like totally unnoticeable but covers the possible pings on LAN. WarCraft III's engine totally failed latency settings.
UPDATE:
A really nice experimental work by SonuvBob here:
On September 12 2007 05:48 SonuvBob wrote:
Just tried the FPVOD test on LAN w/low latency, in both single and multiplayer.
In MP (UDP) it's 200-250ms (13-14 frames at 60fps) between when the right-click circle first shows up and when the SCV starts to react.
On B.net it's 450-650ms (27-39 frames at 60fps).
In SP it's 80-100ms (5-6 frames at 60fps).
That was tested with a drone or SCV (time between first frame with the right-click circle and the first frame the drone reacts), as well as unit creation (time between mouse-up on unit icon and appearance of unit in queue).
|
Are you sure that low latency setting on Battle.net means the same thing as low latency using LAN? I've always had the impression that the two are different.
|
I don't think you are right when you assume there are only 4 latency settings. I just played a number of games on LAN high latency settings, and it had significantly less latency then I would have encountered on battle.net with low latency.
|
i like the look of your post, sadly the content is totally wrong :-/
have you ever played bw MP over LAN (or even hamachi should do)? you WILL notice the difference...
|
muta micro on bnet even with low latency is still really hard, so much less response...
|
Canada291 Posts
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On September 11 2007 21:15 IefNaij wrote:
You are wrong.
gg pwned? 
|
Low Latency is nowhere near LAN.
LAN is no latency. Go play a game on LAN vs a friend or something then go on bnet and try low latency. HUGE difference.
Nice idea, but you apparently don't know what you're talking about. Even hamachi has less delay than bnet, and that's because the lat settings for each are completely different.
|
hamachi is pretty close to lan irrc, bnet is miles away from that
yeah, you are wrong.
|
Battle.net was originally made for people with dial-up, expecting that people had at least a ping of 200. That's the main reason why the 'low latency' is actually pretty high on Battle.net.
And yeah, running it through UDP is different. I know, because I only have 10ms to Battle.net and the latency is always there no matter who I play with.
|
I have several IRL friends which I play a lot with. Sometimes we play over battle.net and sometimes over hamachi. I can assure you that there is a HUGE difference when playing over Hamachi, it's a different game. We have good connections and live pretty near each other geographically so you can easily compare our hamachi gaming to real LAN.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Ok, I accept defeat since I've made a few tests with B.net right now. The low latency setting for B.net is indeed higher and you all can have my apologies for providing wrong info.
However, that is not really the point of the OP. The point is the difference between the single-player latency and low latency on LAN. It is there and that is something I'm willing to stand for. Editing the OP now, but the admins still might close the thread since it originally contained wrong info.
|
Maybe someone could find the (more or less) exact times by recording short FPVODs with low latency, one using UDP on LAN and one on B.net, and checking the time in between click and response.
|
Does anybody know how B.net works? It keeps track of the state (i.e. positions of units, HP, upgrades, etc.) of the game based on the commands you and your opponent send and reports that information back to you after a certain delay that acts as a buffer period (delay determined by your latency setting)? So when your local state is out of sync with the opponent, it forces the person ahead to wait in that 45 sec countdown screen. Greater latency means less getting out of sync but greater wait times before responses. Or do I have a part wrong? Is instead the "server" client that's starting the game tracking the game's state?
Ethernet is extremely reliable and fast (100 Mbps nominal generally for point-to-point connection, depending on what type Ethernet), yeah, so LAN latency should be pretty low.
For LAN, how is it implemented?
|
I belive bw is constantly sending small packages of information to b.net and the latency detriminates the size of the packages, and therefore also the frequency with which they are sent.
|
Im sorry to have to contradict you. Your lan setup might be crappy, defect or just plain clustered but, in no circumstances ever, should you get a 200ms delay on your Lan.
|
On September 12 2007 00:58 BluzMan wrote:
Ok, I accept defeat since I've made a few tests with B.net right now. The low latency setting for B.net is indeed higher and you all can have my apologies for providing wrong info.
However, that is not really the point of the OP. The point is the difference between the single-player latency and low latency on LAN. It is there and that is something I'm willing to stand for. Editing the OP now, but the admins still might close the thread since it originally contained wrong info.
still u r talking shit
low latency on bn is higher than extra high on lan
gg no re
|
On September 12 2007 04:37 DOgMeAt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2007 00:58 BluzMan wrote:
Ok, I accept defeat since I've made a few tests with B.net right now. The low latency setting for B.net is indeed higher and you all can have my apologies for providing wrong info.
However, that is not really the point of the OP. The point is the difference between the single-player latency and low latency on LAN. It is there and that is something I'm willing to stand for. Editing the OP now, but the admins still might close the thread since it originally contained wrong info. still u r talking shit low latency on bn is higher than extra high on lan gg no re No need to be an ass about it. He just admitted he was wrong.
|
So what is better when playing over iccup? should one setup High or Low latency ??
I play in iccup and my ping is always 220. impossible to micro dragoons well....
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On September 12 2007 04:36 Famehunter wrote:
Im sorry to have to contradict you. Your lan setup might be crappy, defect or just plain clustered but, in no circumstances ever, should you get a 200ms delay on your Lan.
Did you miss it? I was talking about LAN without a peer at all. Running single-player missions. C'mon, just go and test it and if it shows nothing, I'm gonna eat my hat.
On September 12 2007 05:22 saitox wrote:
So what is better when playing over iccup? should one setup High or Low latency ??
I play in iccup and my ping is always 220. impossible to micro dragoons well....
You should be playing with the lowest latency setting possible. What is possible is determined by the game running smoothly.
|
On September 12 2007 04:37 DOgMeAt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2007 00:58 BluzMan wrote:
Ok, I accept defeat since I've made a few tests with B.net right now. The low latency setting for B.net is indeed higher and you all can have my apologies for providing wrong info.
However, that is not really the point of the OP. The point is the difference between the single-player latency and low latency on LAN. It is there and that is something I'm willing to stand for. Editing the OP now, but the admins still might close the thread since it originally contained wrong info. still u r talking shit low latency on bn is higher than extra high on lan gg no re
Awesome post there, ace. Keep trolling a good poster and the community will thrive.
|
It would have been interesting to have people from Blizzard just give us the latency values (although not very useful).
|
Game latency FPVOD test results:
Single Player: 83-100ms (5-6 frames)
Multiplayer (UDP): 217-233ms (13-14 frames)
B.net (Low Latency): 450-650ms (27-39 frames)
B.net (High Latency): 667-833ms (40-50 frames)
B.net (Extra Latency): 867-1050ms (52-63 frames)
All testing done with just one person and one computer in melee mode, recording with Camtasia at 60fps. I tried two different tests:
1. SCV movement: The time between first frame in which the right-click circle is visible and the first frame in which the SCV rotates or moves in response.
2. SCV creation: Using the bottom right buttons, which show up as white when the mouse button is pressed, and yellow again when the mouse button is released (the command is not issued until the mouse is released). Used the time between the first frame after mouse-up and the first frame in which the unit appears in the queue.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
|
Could you please get some values from b.net too? See if there's a differance between playing the comp online and playing another player?
Great work anyway!
|
Ok, added B.net. This is all one player + 1 comp btw.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Great work, adding it to the OP to improve this thread's usefulness.
|
Why is this in the strategy section?
lol @ LAN being equivalent to low latency.
|
BluzMan, you might want to update the OP to correct the inaccurate information. In all honestly, the only point you can really take home from what you wrote is that you shouldn't rely on single player micro maps when you play them offline for micro training... although I suppose documenting what ping and latency are is good for newbs.
|
damn, those are some pretty noticeable differences
|
Speaking of latency, does anyone hate those koreans that love setting low latency in EVERY circumstance lol. Its past 2 minutes and someone is lagging and they set low latency and it starts lagged horridly, I set it to extra high, and its pretty smooth, you just can't micro too well and they keep setting it to low even though it spikes and lags sooooo bad rofl.
|
I don't know. It seems alot of people would rather play with lag spikes than extra high latency. How come no one ever uses high? People always pick one of the extremes.
|
Calgary25991 Posts
I've never seen latency fix lag. It will smooth it out if there are spikes, but how often do you have continual lag spikes?
Edit: I can't believe you made an entire thread about how latency is the same across all online platforms. Anyone whose ever played the three (BNet, Hamachi, LAN) will immediately notice the differences.
|
I updated my earlier post w/B.net results for high and extra high latency.
|
If you're offline and you still want to train your micro with latency, create the game in UDP and start the game with yourself only, thne set it to high or extra high latency. It gives you roughly the same latency as bnet playing, except you're offline.
|
I was just trying to explain this to some guy earlier today. He kept saying I was making excuses and "There was no lag" etc.
So should bnet patch latency options since now most everyone has at least DSL?
|
On September 12 2007 13:46 Chill wrote:
I've never seen latency fix lag. It will smooth it out if there are spikes, but how often do you have continual lag spikes?
You've obviously never played someone on the other side of the world with a bad connection
|
this topic shouldnt be here so teamliquid should close it. As they closed mine some weeks ago.
closing topics without reason is gay.
|
On September 12 2007 17:31 saitox wrote:
this topic shouldnt be here so teamliquid should close it. As they closed mine some weeks ago.
closing topics without reason is gay.
That's some convincing and well thought-out reasoning if I've ever heard it. The thread contains relevant information that pertains to SC.
|
Belgium9949 Posts
On September 12 2007 17:31 saitox wrote:
this topic shouldnt be here so teamliquid should close it. As they closed mine some weeks ago.
closing topics without reason is gay.
somebody's got some sand in his vagina
|
On September 12 2007 17:31 saitox wrote:
this topic shouldnt be here so teamliquid should close it. As they closed mine some weeks ago.
closing topics without reason is gay.
How about they close your account as well?
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On September 12 2007 15:27 H_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2007 13:46 Chill wrote:
I've never seen latency fix lag. It will smooth it out if there are spikes, but how often do you have continual lag spikes?
You've obviously never played someone on the other side of the world with a bad connection
Have you ever encountered a lagger that latency fixed anything? I haven't, in about 6 years of playing.
|
On September 12 2007 23:06 Chill wrote:
Have you ever encountered a lagger that latency fixed anything? I haven't, in about 6 years of playing.
I can honestly say that I have. My lag on iCCup is fucking abysmal, and it WILL spike if I leave it on Low latency. If I set it to Extra High, it won't spike but there will be ~1 second delays on everything I do. You've probably never experienced that because you're in Canada.
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
On September 12 2007 23:50 H_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2007 23:06 Chill wrote:
Have you ever encountered a lagger that latency fixed anything? I haven't, in about 6 years of playing. I can honestly say that I have. My lag on iCCup is fucking abysmal, and it WILL spike if I leave it on Low latency. If I set it to Extra High, it won't spike but there will be ~1 second delays on everything I do. You've probably never experienced that because you're in Canada.
Playing on EHL is unplayable IMO, reactive micro is basically impossible. I don't know how you can, unless it's just what you're used to. 
|
On September 12 2007 23:55 EvilTeletubby wrote:Playing on EHL is unplayable IMO, reactive micro is basically impossible. I don't know how you can, unless it's just what you're used to.
I no longer play on iCCup due to it ;_;
Hamachi EHL is definitely different though, that's playable lag (even if it's still like 500ms).
|
This latency thing really bugs me alot. It takes muta opening out of the question for all zerg players if you want to use them to their full potential. When I open with muta on bnet/iccup my thoughts are something along the lines of "heh, 3 cannons ( or 3/4 turrets ), i can micro that with 8 muta- oh fuck why arent you going back and forth when i tell you t- aaaaahhhhh 4 mutas are dead"
It is really horrible and heart breaking because my mutas are my babies.
|
f10 o n e, is just as unplayable as massive lag spikes stopping the game every 4 seconds.
f10 o n l, 4lyfe
|
Why do people then put it on extra high?
I've rarely had perfect timing games, seems so smooth and professional like I'm actually playing like a pro.
|
On September 13 2007 06:54 afiddy wrote:
This latency thing really bugs me alot. It takes muta opening out of the question for all zerg players if you want to use them to their full potential. When I open with muta on bnet/iccup my thoughts are something along the lines of "heh, 3 cannons ( or 3/4 turrets ), i can micro that with 8 muta- oh fuck why arent you going back and forth when i tell you t- aaaaahhhhh 4 mutas are dead"
It is really horrible and heart breaking because my mutas are my babies.
lol
|
On September 13 2007 07:29 CharlieMurphy wrote:
f10 o n e, is just as unplayable as massive lag spikes stopping the game every 4 seconds.
f10 o n l, 4lyfe
Playing on extra high latency is obviously not as bad as playing with massive lag spikes. When a game starts and if you can feel lag, people leave right away. However, if you set it to extra high and fix the lag, people stay, meaning they would rather play with no lag spikes. There are those few games where someone is ignorant and keep setting it to extra low. I play lots of games where the latency is set to low and the lag is so bad you can seem like a pro with only 25 apm... This is the kind of lag where the game starts and when you send your 4 workers to minerals it will take 5 seconds to reach them letting you make a perfect split lol. Setting the latency to extra high will make the game smooth, but it would basically be pointless trying to micro.
|
I'd rather play a laggy game than a high latency one. It's totally impossible to micro when you're not used to the latency.
|
On September 13 2007 07:29 CharlieMurphy wrote:
f10 o n e, is just as unplayable as massive lag spikes stopping the game every 4 seconds.
f10 o n l, 4lyfe
i prefer alt o n l enter, i find it faster 
|
Calgary25991 Posts
Stop bumping this thread unless it's on topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
