|
This article definitely has a lot of hypothesis and methodology issues, I think.
Let's start at the top with the assertion that abilities cast on low ping should have a higher success rate. Why? Presumably because they are easier to aim, correct? But doesn't it also make spells easier to dodge? Additionally, if something only has a 60% success rate (both online and off) it's really strange for the hypothesis you're refuting to be that latency only causes 'hits' to miss and doesn't cause 'misses' to hit, too, at some probable lower frequency. You don't attempt to address spell casts that aren't designed to hit, either. While figuring spells used for zoning purposes isn't a statistic that is influenced by LAN status is reasonable, ignoring the effect of guaranteed misses watering down your results is somewhat less reasonable.
The assertion that a ping difference below human reaction times doesn't make a difference is really, really strange. When you say something that so strongly disagrees with your own experience (surely everybody who has ever played an online video game will feel weird about the original assertion?) you really have to go back and analyse how you came up with it. Maybe you're right and it's counter-intuitive and what everybody feels turns out to actually not be true. That happens sometimes. But not this time. To execute anything in the game you are required to: Have the server pose the question (Ping/2) + Analyse and execute your response (Human reaction) + Have the server receive your response (Ping/2). What answer you come up with will have to be A Good Idea and in addition executed on time. When we're watching video games it is to see who has The Good Ideas and who can be S4 Phase Shifting Alchemist Stuns out of Shadow Blade in the river. According to our formula as you reduce ping you increase the influence of human reaction time, which meshes with our ideals of sorting better players. If you reduce total ping+human reaction time then you're increasing the influence of having good ideas, which also does the same. Having a 100ms reaction time advantage over your opponent is a lot better when your reaction time is 130ms+4ms than when it is 130ms+200ms.
Adding latency also reduces from the pool of available plays. In any given situation you have X amount of time to do something. The thing you choose to do, the Good Idea is no good if it doesn't hit the map quick enough. Your good idea will have to consider your reaction time, game functions like turn rate and casts times as well as ping. We're okay with the first two because as an audience that's what we deem to be the game. We like varied reaction times because it makes us feel like the players are different and it's possible to be better. We like varied cast times (and other game mechanics) because we feel like it makes the players' options varied and allows the ideal player response to be different in different situations or different if you're Really, Really Good. (Something we like a lot.) Ping doesn't do either of those things. Watching a player outplay their ping is not something we can even really perceive without first person perspective, it just feels like a tax reducing the total options available to the player and with it the ability for any player to differentiate themselves from others. With 500ms ping all progamers have the same mechanics.
So yeah, that's why people like LAN. It reduces variance (cutting both the Ice Paths that miss when they should hit as well as those that hit when they should miss) and amplifies the mechanical differences between players (the difference between X and Y is relatively bigger the lower the numbers are.) and increases the pool of possibilities for players in all situations allowing them to show they have more, and better, Good Ideas than other players.
Also, LAN is where the best players play under real pressure with real consequences. It's Fucking Lan. DIOL.
|
Sorry. But what a bad thread this is. Im not gonna explain too much about the lack of variables and the choice of only using 1 variable (skillshots/ping). Im not even gonna explain to you that even if you took all measurable (mechical) variables needed and many non/hard measured variables (human emotions) overlooked that a small percentage in skill is tremendous in toplevel play.
What I do want to say is that - as having been a competitor at many games and having real offline lan experience - being in a LAN environment has often brought out my A game and bring me into high adrenaline/focus mode making me perform at way higher level than online. I always considered myself a sub-pro in most games but at offline lans ive destroyed players that are way better than me in online environment.
|
I think I'm more interested in whether people adjust their play style in longer LANs. For example do people start last hitting slightly different during a long TI3 run or do they start playing slightly more aggressive storm spirit or puck or so?
|
|
|
On October 11 2013 17:06 Lachrymose wrote:
This article definitely has a lot of hypothesis and methodology issues, I think.
Let's start at the top with the assertion that abilities cast on low ping should have a higher success rate. Why? Presumably because they are easier to aim, correct? But doesn't it also make spells easier to dodge?
Juking means dodging...
|
On October 11 2013 19:13 NeThZOR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 17:06 Lachrymose wrote:
This article definitely has a lot of hypothesis and methodology issues, I think.
Let's start at the top with the assertion that abilities cast on low ping should have a higher success rate. Why? Presumably because they are easier to aim, correct? But doesn't it also make spells easier to dodge? Juking means dodging...
Should probably point out that Kpop isn't the one making the assertion about success rates, other people are. Any good scientist will try to disprove something rather than prove it, which seems to be the attitude Kpop took, try to disprove the hypothesis that playing on LAN makes a difference.
His methodology is pretty sound too, he took 3 of the hardest skill shots and showed that the difference in success rates were not statistically significant. I would be willing to venture if he did this analysis again once the LAN feature is working well and there is a decent sample size, the result will be the roughly the same. Especially if you use games where the players had similar relative pings. So find games where you know that both teams have roughly the same ping as each other during online games (i.e EU vs EU or RU vs RU) and then compare those with games played on true LAN, if there is a significant difference in success rates (either you hit way more often, or you juke way more often) then it will finally be proven that LAN is better.... but I am confident there will be no statistically relevant difference.
In a world where pings are roughly equal, they cancel each other out. So if you and your opponent have roughly the same ping online, you would get roughly the same result offline..... this is the whole point of what Kpop was talking about. Its slightly easier to hit a skillshot but it is conversely easier to dodge.
Kpop even mentions that the EU/US ping differences make for a more substantial difference. Obviously if you have 150ms and your opponent has nearly double, you have an advantage. But if you both have 100ms ping, its the same as you both having 10ms or 0ms. The only difference is how it "feels" to you.
There has always been an assertion that being on LAN makes a huge difference, what is likely the truth is that it just feels like it makes a huge difference, when in reality, it probably makes less of a significant difference than one would assume especially in the case where you would have similar relative pings online.
|
On October 11 2013 17:39 ruiyang wrote:
Sorry. But what a bad thread this is. Im not gonna explain too much about the lack of variables and the choice of only using 1 variable (skillshots/ping). Im not even gonna explain to you that even if you took all measurable (mechical) variables needed and many non/hard measured variables (human emotions) overlooked that a small percentage in skill is tremendous in toplevel play.
What I do want to say is that - as having been a competitor at many games and having real offline lan experience - being in a LAN environment has often brought out my A game and bring me into high adrenaline/focus mode making me perform at way higher level than online. I always considered myself a sub-pro in most games but at offline lans ive destroyed players that are way better than me in online environment.
So what you are saying is that when playing on a true LAN, you play better because of every factor except the game itself. Being in the ENVIRONMENT helped you play better, you felt better, you were in a great atmosphere, so you played better.
That i can believe, if there is any real difference between online and LAN its that the players themselves are able to produce their A game, the ping etc makes little difference to that. If you play at a LAN but play via online servers, you would play just as well as if you were playing on an actual LAN server.
This analysis wasn't supposed to be about the whole LAN experience but to focus on one factor, the one touted most often as the big reason why LAN is better.... lower pings. And it showed that it doesn't seem to be the case. So perhaps instead of lambasting the thread, you should take the time to think about the implications. Its not the game or the pings that make player play better on LAN, its the experience itself.
P.s 1% is not statistically significant in any way, it falls well within the established margin of error. Which means it is insignificant at any level... pro or not. If I am 1% better than you, I am not better than you. It is nonsense to say that a 1% difference is is tremendous...... it is so completely insignificant that you might as well say i am 1 nano second faster over 100 metres than Usain Bolt. In other words... you aren't faster. 5% difference? Huge. 1% difference, irrelevant.
|
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 19:13 NeThZOR wrote:On October 11 2013 17:06 Lachrymose wrote:
This article definitely has a lot of hypothesis and methodology issues, I think.
Let's start at the top with the assertion that abilities cast on low ping should have a higher success rate. Why? Presumably because they are easier to aim, correct? But doesn't it also make spells easier to dodge? Juking means dodging... Should probably point out that Kpop isn't the one making the assertion about success rates, other people are. Any good scientist will try to disprove something rather than prove it, which seems to be the attitude Kpop took, try to disprove the hypothesis that playing on LAN makes a difference.
But the thing is "makes a difference" is not remotely equal to "skillshots land more" which is the only thing he disproved -- something nobody ever said in the first place.
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:His methodology is pretty sound too, he took 3 of the hardest skill shots and showed that the difference in success rates were not statistically significant.
This shows nothingggg.
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:if there is a significant difference in success rates (either you hit way more often, or you juke way more often) then it will finally be proven that LAN is better....
No it wouldn'ttttttttt??
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:In a world where pings are roughly equal, they cancel each other out. So if you and your opponent have roughly the same ping online, you would get roughly the same result offline..... this is the whole point of what Kpop was talking about. Its slightly easier to hit a skillshot but it is conversely easier to dodge.
Have you ever played a videogame online? This is like exactly why you don't understand why this article completely misses the point of LAN. Latency functions as an equaliser, like I showed. Latency also changes and dumbs down the game like I showed. Dota is not a very latency sensitive game overall, but if you think about it in terms of something that is it's really fucking easy to understand and then apply it back to Dota. Imagine Street Fighter. If you think "fair" latency doesn't change a game of SF4 then honestly I don't know what to tell you.
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:Kpop even mentions that the EU/US ping differences make for a more substantial difference. Obviously if you have 150ms and your opponent has nearly double, you have an advantage. But if you both have 100ms ping, its the same as you both having 10ms or 0ms. The only difference is how it "feels" to you.
This is wrong. It's wrong. It's extremely wrong. I've outlined why it's wrong and you didn't address that. It's wrong. It's also really dumb, to be honest. But mostly it's really, really wrong.
On October 11 2013 19:29 emythrel wrote:There has always been an assertion that being on LAN makes a huge difference, what is likely the truth is that it just feels like it makes a huge difference, when in reality, it probably makes less of a significant difference than one would assume especially in the case where you would have similar relative pings online.
Honest question: Have you ever been a competitive gamer in anything? Not like "I played SC2 on ladder lala.~" but something legitimate.
|
hmm thats interesting. I would say the ability to react increases more with lesser ping then the ability to execute, so a bit confused that the hit chance actually got better. Warcraft 3 online(internet like delay as well) vs offline play giving the best examples here. Especially since there people trained for playing offline.
Internet got better, people play mostly online, most money is online and has no travelcost involved most of the time and Dota2 is rather balanced around online play. So I would say it is hard to get the Warcraft 3 effect in Dota2, where it becomes a different game almost. It can happen but I doubt it will occur regularly and most Lan games will just look like regional Internet play. And it will need some time to get started again. I am rather curious about how this will evolve and if it will effect other games.
|
Intuitively I think LAN should make a difference, but perhaps it really depends on how much is the lag/latency one normally gets vs LAN. Perhaps the best players really do have godly reaction timing sustained throughout a tournament.
|
Lan is the big deal for FPS games, I think the lan standing comes from the big CS/quake era when internet was not as good as it is now. It was also way easier to cheat on the internet without being caught at this time so lans were the real deal to shut the suspicious guys. Many guys were called netzors/netters at this time.
Then there is the environment effect, I know my play is way better on lan, just because I'm more focused and at the same time more relaxed. The games also feel a lot smoother. But I know some people play better when they're at home in their comfort zone.
Concerning dota 2, the winrate of home server during US vs EU match is ridiculous so lan are still the deal when teams from different continents face each other. Other than that I can't say if there is any effect as I've not played a dota lan since 2008.
|
Russian Federation49 Posts
both successfully travel to a LAN, and play good Dota while offline as well.
cmon, fix this shit, my ocd is going ssj! They are good offline while they play well on LAN.... Cmon, put online there
|
On October 11 2013 15:08 Leeoku wrote:
I also realized this would be first big tourney that can make use of the lan function that dota implemented
The lan function is hardly implemented though. It's just slapped on and barely functional. Another one of valves half asses approach.
|
for all the hypothesis about LAN vs online tourney, one easy way to see how the lan advantage affect teams is creep blocking. When you watch the creep-blocks of mid players in the TI3 qualifiers vs the LAN finals for instance, you see a 2-3 second* difference in when the creeps meet. While that number on my part is just speculation, the part that made me notice it was HOW the players blocked. In LAN players usually seemed to move much more side to side and less of using stop/hold position than online.
That is one specific instance, but things like that can make a huge difference to how the game feels.
|
I'm not surprised such an article would get blasted by many, the touchy-feely perception of "LAN is better fullstop" is hard to defeat by simply plotting skill shot rates.
In truth, CS/Quake benefited the most from LAN because it excluded any cheaters (they dare not show their faces), eliminated any loss packets/chokes (which isn't nearly as problematic in dota ime), and simply allowed face-time between teammates and adversaries.
Granted, all these point still stand, and indeed it is easier to make plays because the response from action is better than playing online, but the opponents are doing the same. There isn't much of a difference between "netters" and LAN teams in terms of skill, but primarily mentality and preparation.
|
The gif ends for me right before the attack hits, is it supposed to?
|
On October 11 2013 16:54 TheEmulator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 16:52 Beirut wrote:
This is a cool first look at one of the indicators of performance, but I don't think it's conclusive by any means of online vs. offline performance. Far from it, I think there are some other performance indicators to look at offline vs. online that seem to be kind of ignored here. I think the article is a bit misunderstood. It's not meant to be a full analysis of offline vs online and which is better, but it is just looking at a specific issue which is ping. Although I think a full feature on all the differences might be a good idea in the future.
as TL's resident expert on high ping, I approve of this message
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:46 strongandbig wrote:
The gif ends for me right before the attack hits, is it supposed to?
Nope. There's meant to be a little more, and it is on endless repeat.
|
28089 Posts
On October 11 2013 22:01 Efane wrote:Show nested quote +both successfully travel to a LAN, and play good Dota while offline as well. cmon, fix this shit, my ocd is going ssj! They are good offline while they play well on LAN.... Cmon, put online there
You already edited this into your other post asking for a fix, just be patient. You know people sleep and stuff so things can't always be fixed asap. Also, chill it's just a simple typo no need to go ssj over it.
Thanks for spotting it though, but just ask nicely for a fix next time we don't mind.
|
I think a better thing to do would have been to examine Puck, a hero who has been openly stated by some pro players to be picked more during LAN because the faerie dragon is so reliant on reaction time. Is his win% significantly higher on LAN, pick %, phase shift dodge %(though I don't know how you would measure this), average deaths notably lower, etc.?
Watching the 1v1 tournament where Iceiceice and Mushi were on Puck mirrors makes it pretty clear than some of that stuff is basically impossible at anything besides extremely low pings (specifically iceiceice actually dodging orb a few times with level 1 phase shift's .25 second invulnerability, and even then it was something that was remarked upon as being extremely impressive).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
