StarLadder started today, showing us some great action so far from 4 of the top EU Dota 2 teams. Please check out our LR thread or join us on IRC to discuss the games this week, I promise it will be fun. For this article we got one of our resident stats experts, K-poptosis, to explain the impact that playing offline or online events has on the results.
The games are already upon us, so sit back and watch some great EU Dota!
Results after day 1
Offline vs Online
By K-poptosis
We have all heard it innumerable times before, "LANs are just different". According to many, players play faster and better without ping issues making skill shots easier to land, teams enjoy being in the same room, and the best teams always bring their A-games. Well, put a black beret on my head and horn-rimmed glasses on my face because I am now channeling the MythBusters to whether some points of this argument hold any water. Apologies in advance for the lack of explosions.
When the International 3’s qualifier teams were announced, many believed iCCup was chosen to compete over other teams, including Kaipi (now Speed Gaming), due to the fact that iCCup had successful LAN experience. By upsetting Na'Vi en-route to taking 2nd place at TechLabs March LAN, they had proven they could both successfully travel to a LAN, and play good Dota while offline as well. Whether or not that is the true reason they were selected , the popular opinion being what it was is very important, as it showcased just how much the community believes LANS are truly a different beast compared to playing online.
But is that truly the case? Sure, the fact that pings are reduced is not debatable, but do teams actually perform differently when playing at a LAN? One route I considered to analyze this was simply comparing teams records when on and off LAN, but there are multiple problems for doing so. The largest of the reasons being relatively small sample sizes and polarized win rates due to the higher concentrations of talented teams. For example, a team might have a bad record at a LAN simply because they weren't better than the competition, not because they perform poorly on LAN. Therefore, what I decided to do was dig a bit deeper to see if I could find a root cause for this perception and not just the outward display. Specifically, I wanted to see if one of the biggest reasons why LANs are placed on a pedestal - negligible ping - actually affects the accuracy of skill shots.
I believed that looking at abilities with long cast or travel times would give the largest disparity between on and offline play due to their heightened dependence upon timing and foresight. Consequently, I decided upon three abilities from regularly drafted heroes over the last year that showcase this reliance on having reading the other team quickly and with precision. They were Jakiro’s Ice Path, Clockwerk’s Hookshot, and Leshrac’s Split Earth. (Data prior to Jakiro’s Ice Path formation time buff was not included.)
Percentage of each spell hit offline and online
As you can see, more skill shots do seem to be hit when on LAN, but the difference is negligible. According to this data Jakiro benefits most of the three from being played in low ping conditions, but even then only 1 in 62 Ice Paths that would miss online would hit on LAN, and that difference is not even statistically significant. This may come as a shock to many that would believe it to be much easier to hit skill-shots on LAN, but the possible explanation is a fairly obvious one: your enemy benefits from the decreased latency as much as you do, making juking easier. Furthermore, the difference in playing at 150ms ping versus 20ms may very well be too small for the human body to capitalize upon. This supposition is supported by data from the website HumanBenchmark, which through 6.5 million tests using it’s own reaction time test, determined that the average (median) reaction time is 215 milliseconds, with only 0.1% of testers reaching a reaction time higher than 130 ms.
So there you have it. According to the data, the ping differences for online versus offline competitions is simply too small in most cases to cause a significant change in gameplay that favors particular heroes or playstyles. That’s not to say that larger ping differences that are commonplace in EU vs US matchups are negligible though. Quite the opposite actually if the ping difference exceeds the normal human reaction time. However, performing on a LAN should not cause an increase in performance beyond a player’s normal faculties, it simply evens the playing field. If a team performs better on LAN than in online tournaments, I would consider it more likely due to outside-of-the-game factors such as team communication when in person, and ability to deal with jet lag and hotel food.
do you know they are still playing online and when navi plays vs empire at starladder "lan" the ping is pretty much the same as when they play online? (depending if they got a shit provider tho) the local network feature got implemented only couple of weeks ago and afaik is not even working properly yet (thats why theyre not playing local network (technology just isnt there yet)) and yes, the ping difference when your actually playing lan is highly noticable to online "lan" different story for na teams obviously id say when ur eu, the ping difference between eu<->na is like eu<->local
Interesting analysis, I wouldn't discount differences that are less than the average human reaction time though, in my opinion it would make more sense to add the reaction time to the ping to find the total "action time". For example if an ability took 300ms to cast and hit you and you have a 200ms reaction time to phase shift (phase shift is instant right?) the difference between dodging and not could be within that 100ms difference.
To be honest I do agree that it doesn't make a huge difference, I'm really just being pedantic, however I do much prefer the "feel" that you get from the quick responsiveness of sub 100 ping.
maybe my english is sad, but this looks like a mistake
both successfully travel to a LAN, and play good Dota while offline as well.
playing at LAN and playing offline are indeed 2 wonderful, completely different things)
Team spirit and LAN "energy" seem to factor hugely into the quality of the games, players get fired up and perform to max since there is a crowd cheering, teammates nearby and a hefty sum of moneyz in the end. Ping is really negligible when you consider the environment itself and how it changes the game
On October 11 2013 12:42 Myrddraal wrote: Interesting analysis, I wouldn't discount differences that are less than the average human reaction time though, in my opinion it would make more sense to add the reaction time to the ping to find the total "action time". For example if an ability took 300ms to cast and hit you and you have a 200ms reaction time to phase shift (phase shift is instant right?) the difference between dodging and not could be within that 100ms difference.
To be honest I do agree that it doesn't make a huge difference, I'm really just being pedantic, however I do much prefer the "feel" that you get from the quick responsiveness of sub 100 ping.
Greater ping should narrow the window in which you can successfully react from both ends, because it delays when both when you get the information you'd react to and when your orders (reactions) get processed... right?
Yeah the bit about 150ms being irrelevant because it's below human reaction time is pretty unfortunate/inaccurate. It's closer to the truth to say the delay ADDS 150ms to your reaction time.
I think what's not considered in this is what will likely be most important: last hits.
Considering skill shots come to maybe 20 per game, last hits will be in the hundreds. Unlike skill shots, a small percentage difference in last hits can greatly alter the course of a game. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to compare them, but I feel that last-hitting would be what's greatest affected by the ping
(I know personally when I'm lagging my last hits are what suffer the most)
On October 11 2013 16:15 PuercoPop wrote: May it be that because of the additional lag you don't try to land your skill shot under circumstances you would otherwise do?
I know when aL was the Australian roster (Natural 9) and it came to playing Na'Vi or whomever, due to lag they would pick less-dependent heroes (in terms of last hits, skillshots etc and go for more of a facerush strat)
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.
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.
The whole premise of comparing skillshot accuracy is completely flawed. I mean for fuck's sake, you even say it in the article - it is also easier to dodge with lower ping. But that's the whole point! Everything is easier so all aspects of the game are better - nothing is hindering the players' true potential.
Another important thing - there is a world of difference between reacting to something unpredictable (like the human benchmark test) or something that is predictable - like an enemy hero walking along a path. If we accurately predict what's going to happen, we can react a lot faster to it. Timing is affected by lag way more than reaction.
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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).
Whats the reason for comparing lan to online when there hasn't been a real lan mode for quite a while, and pretty much every data you have from online play
On October 12 2013 00:36 Nevuk wrote: 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).
could someone please explain me the gif? i never played shadow fiend - was that his regular ulti? (it looks like he vanishes and then comes back and takes a swipe) (im not familiar with the animation is all - i just figured out what is actually happening in the gif)
if landing a skill in LAN is 1% more accurate than online, then landing all 4 skills might come to about 4% , and performing other actions like movement, csing, blinking, mekking might all add up to another 6%....
....we could say that LAN games are roughly 10% more skilled from a spectators point of view
On October 12 2013 01:31 FFGenerations wrote: looking at puck is a cool idea
could someone please explain me the gif? i never played shadow fiend - was that his regular ulti? (it looks like he vanishes and then comes back and takes a swipe)
if landing a skill in LAN is 1% more accurate than online, then landing all 4 skills might come to about 4% , and performing other actions like movement, csing, blinking, mekking might all add up to another 6%....
....we could say that LAN games are roughly 10% more skilled from a spectators point of view
When sf dies he casts his ult, but only half of the souls. What happened in the gif is that Nyx was porting away with carapace on, and sf snuck up on him with Shadow Blade then he auto attacked nyx doing a massive crit on him with daedulus, but since carapace was up he essentially crit himself and died. Also a random magnus skewers in after but that isn't relevant to the gif, lol.
I don't see any relevancy in comparing human reaction times with the ping. No matter which is higher than the other, the time it takes for something to be able to be percieved to the moment when an action has been taken and been communicated to the game is a combination of the two, not one minus the other.
There may be some relevancy, but I fail to see it explained in the article. If you bother responding TheEmulator, please be specific.
On October 12 2013 01:47 Bogeyman wrote: I don't see any relevancy in comparing human reaction times with the ping. No matter which is higher than the other, the time it takes for something to be able to be percieved to the moment when an action has been taken and been communicated to the game is a combination of the two, not one minus the other.
There may be some relevancy, but I fail to see it explained in the article. If you bother responding TheEmulator, please be specific.
I didn't write the article. So I won't bother responding, lol
I don't think this issue was thought out enough. Spells like ice path have little to do with ping and more to do with prediction. You predict where the enemy will go and you ice path there. The enemy reacts to and predicts the jakiro's movements and dodges from there. No to mention the various setups to these kind of spells that are used in competive all the time (song, vacuum, etc). Ping has a minimal effect on this skill.
What should have been analyzed was the ability to disjoint targeted spells. This relies heavily on reaction more than prediction. Let's pretend LAN means no delay. If a storm hammer is coming my way and I want to blink to dodge it, I would first react to it, blink, and in a LAN situation I would immediately blink. However in the same situation with 100+ ping my blink is delay by that much more. It would make me more likely to be hit and it would be entirely out of my control. This is the reason why LAN is better. Anything you do is based on your own reaction more than any effect of latency.
While I could believe that LAN speeds are irrelevant to DOTA, I don't really feel that's the case. The fact of the matter is that good players are good at identifying both their own and the enemy capabilities and weaknesses and capitalizing on both.. which includes lag time. If the game is laggy they will know by how much and by how much extra 'sure' they have to be to succeed. If players hit 60% of the time, that doesn't mean that they are only capable of hitting 60% of the time, it's just that it is most efficient to attempt to hit when you have a 60% chance of hitting.
I've had the misfortune of living in an area with sub-par ping times... between 200ms and 500ms are the norm until just this last year. And going from even 200ms to 20 ms is such a huge leap in accuracy and reaction time it is unbelievable. You may argue that equal lag is equal footing, but that discounts factors such as lag spikes and packet loss. And ultimately, the sport is a display of skill, skill that is clearly lacking in a high ping environment. I would always choose the lower ping game to watch, and play, and consider a LAN the only level playing field. No matter what some companies may wish you to believe...
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.
sowwy (>*_*<) its just really getting on my nerves since i see it every time i scroll down >< im new to posting, dun ban me, be gracious lol
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.
sowwy (>*_*<) its just really getting on my nerves since i see it every time i scroll down >< im new to posting, dun ban me, be gracious lol
Saying things like 'please don't warn/ban me' results in automatic moderation on TL. You should edit that out.
So-called "skillshots" aren't really the basis of Dota 2. They're important, but far from the most important factor. So many more things change with latency besides "skillshots" that using only these to conclude a negligible net result is short-sighted.
You don't take into account reaction times, which are pretty important and game impacting too. There's some things that are impossible without LAN ping:
* Blinking away from Smoke gank * Stealing Ravage as Rubick while the spikes are travelling towards you * Pressing Phase Shift/BKB after NA backstab before the Impale lands * Hexing Storm Spirit after he flies onto you before he gets Vortex off
There was one sick play (I think it was in TI3) where S4 Phase Shifted NA's Impale after Backstab and absolutely wrecked shit in that fight. You can say it's situational and whatnot all you like, but the fact is some heroes can only be pushed to their absolute limits with low ping.
I haven't really read the other comments in this post but where are these stats from? Is it comparing all Lan vs all Online play?
Because I'd hazard to guess the average level of team on Lan is significantly higher than it is online. Or is this looking at stats from a specific team or subset of teams?
I'd be more interested to see the differences in statistics from specific teams. Because even if it might average out the same, there could be teams with drastically different stats online and offline. Even the more basic stats like team-fight participation. I could imagine a team might work differently when sitting next to eachother, and that's more interesting than landing a skill shot or not.
~
As for the stats on human reaction times I'm going to have to not really believe that it's relevant. For one having a high ping usually means you also have an unstable ping. And for another reaction times and delayed reactions would seem to me to be quite different thing to handle as a human being. And the issue with people playing with high ping has more to do with being accustomed to lower ping. This is something that no test will simulate.
For example if you play counter-strike for the first time with 20 ms or 120 ms you might not be able to notice the difference and it won't affect your performance. If you play for 10 years, you can't compare the actions you are making to a test made about reaction times from people who are performing an action which they are untrained in. Of course there is a human limitation in how fast we can realistically react. But one must believe that you can't compare whatever test you perform on millions of people to the actions of someone who does it 8 hours a day for a decade.
Because in the case of counter-strike it isn't all about 'when you see and when you react', you see, you make the action to move your mouse, and then you click. A flick-shot. And where you click in the flick shot trajectory is a difference between hitting a head and a wall, and if you're playing at a ping you are not accustomed to, you will miss that shot.
People can bring up general studies all they want, but I guarantee that if you take a CS pro and let them play for an hour with 0 ping and for an hour with 100 ping. And you don't tell them which one is which, they will be able to identify it. The reaction time tests are bullshit, I've done them several times and you spend 30 minutes more with them and you'd get a higher score.
On October 12 2013 01:31 FFGenerations wrote: looking at puck is a cool idea
could someone please explain me the gif? i never played shadow fiend - was that his regular ulti? (it looks like he vanishes and then comes back and takes a swipe)
if landing a skill in LAN is 1% more accurate than online, then landing all 4 skills might come to about 4% , and performing other actions like movement, csing, blinking, mekking might all add up to another 6%....
....we could say that LAN games are roughly 10% more skilled from a spectators point of view
When sf dies he casts his ult, but only half of the souls. What happened in the gif is that Nyx was porting away with carapace on, and sf snuck up on him with Shadow Blade then he auto attacked nyx doing a massive crit on him with daedulus, but since carapace was up he essentially crit himself and died. Also a random magnus skewers in after but that isn't relevant to the gif, lol.
The Magnus's name is town portal expert, 100% relevant
Also I would guess that the study saying only 0.1% of testers have reaction tests that low is a bit misleading, because progamers probably aren't a random sample due to the nature of the job. I would guess that a lot more than 0.1% of pros have reaction times faster than that. It's like saying "Only 0.1% of people can maintain this speed over a long period of time" as proof of a marathon runner's abilities. That number doesn't mean anything because the nature of the activity means that they're probably in that 0.1%
On October 13 2013 07:21 Yoshi~ wrote: You don't take into account reaction times, which are pretty important and game impacting too. There's some things that are impossible without LAN ping:
* Blinking away from Smoke gank * Stealing Ravage as Rubick while the spikes are travelling towards you * Pressing Phase Shift/BKB after NA backstab before the Impale lands * Hexing Storm Spirit after he flies onto you before he gets Vortex off
There was one sick play (I think it was in TI3) where S4 Phase Shifted NA's Impale after Backstab and absolutely wrecked shit in that fight. You can say it's situational and whatnot all you like, but the fact is some heroes can only be pushed to their absolute limits with low ping.
The one I remember is when S4 Phase Shifted Unstable Concoction, which was cast from a pretty close range. It's kind of funny, as this time in Starladder XBOCT went up point blank and cast it so S4 wouldn't do that again.
edit: these were, of course, cast by a shadow bladed Alchemist
On October 13 2013 22:46 meniscus- wrote: With real LAN functionality, we might see a difference. Dota 2 LANs were just everyone connecting to Dota 2 servers anyway.
No it's not. All you need to do is auth with steam, it's completely local otherwise
"your enemy benefits from the decreased latency as much as you do" - not true if you were playing on THEIR region from across the world online.
"urthermore, the difference in playing at 150ms ping versus 20ms may very well be too small for the human body to capitalize upon." - that is a blatant lie. i find ping of 100+ unplayable, and i feel the difference strongly between 60 ms and 30 ms, and between 30ms and <10 ms. maybe you should've input 'my human body' instead of 'the human body'. don't be so full of yourself and learn to speak for yourself.
this is why i wish there was some pro teams here in us west, i'd be happy to form one and have been trying to, but it's hard to find players when the live games are all european or chinese or even us east rather than us west.
On October 14 2013 06:44 dcttr66 wrote: "urthermore, the difference in playing at 150ms ping versus 20ms may very well be too small for the human body to capitalize upon." - that is a blatant lie. i find ping of 100+ unplayable, and i feel the difference strongly between 60 ms and 30 ms, and between 30ms and <10 ms. maybe you should've input 'my human body' instead of 'the human body'. don't be so full of yourself and learn to speak for yourself.
Although I disagree with the conclusion drawn in the article you realize he's talking in relation to a study not himself.
On October 14 2013 06:44 dcttr66 wrote: "urthermore, the difference in playing at 150ms ping versus 20ms may very well be too small for the human body to capitalize upon." - that is a blatant lie. i find ping of 100+ unplayable, and i feel the difference strongly between 60 ms and 30 ms, and between 30ms and <10 ms. maybe you should've input 'my human body' instead of 'the human body'. don't be so full of yourself and learn to speak for yourself.
Although I disagree with the conclusion drawn in the article you realize he's talking in relation to a study not himself.
so, are you trying to tell me that people such as myself are super-human because we feel the difference? well okay, thanks for the compliment, i guess. i thought it was just having good comprehension skills.
Let's take my previous example of pressing Phase Shift in response to Backstab before Impale comes out.
NA has cast time of 0.4 seconds on Impale, but the time Impale is cast will be slightly later than 400ms after Backstab because no player has perfect animation cancelling. Furthermore, Impale will take a fraction of a second to travel towards your hero across that short melee distance. So let's make an assumption that Impale will hit your hero 500ms after Backstab.
Humans have ~215ms reaction time (according to the source in this article) - but this is in a test where you have your hand on the mouse and wait for a colour change on the screen to press the mouse button. In Dota 2 you are focusing on everything that's going on in the game and you aren't holding your finger over your Phase Shift hotkey the whole game long waiting for an NA Backstab. When Backstab hits, your brain has to process that information and make the decision to Phase Shift and this takes time. Let's say human reaction time is about 400~ms in this scenario.
Thus, if you have LAN ping and you react in time, it is definitely possible to dodge Impale with Phase Shift (as S4 did at TI3, winning the fight for his team).
If you have online ping of 150~ms, you probably have a solid 0.5s delay (from my experience playing on SEA servers with 160~ ping). On this ping, the possibility of Phase Shift dodging impale goes out the window because your hero's reaction time is at least double due to the ping. In that scenario S4 would never be able to dodge Impale, eat the Impale and the Mana Burn on top, die and never contribute to that teamfight.
Even not taking these uncommon scenarios into account, in mid lane, for example, last hits and denies are heavily contested by both players and every last-hit/deny is determined by often very tiny fractions of seconds. Delay will definitely affect the last-hit/deny dynamic at mid.
You can't say that the human body can't take advantage of lower pings.
On October 14 2013 06:44 dcttr66 wrote: "urthermore, the difference in playing at 150ms ping versus 20ms may very well be too small for the human body to capitalize upon." - that is a blatant lie. i find ping of 100+ unplayable, and i feel the difference strongly between 60 ms and 30 ms, and between 30ms and <10 ms. maybe you should've input 'my human body' instead of 'the human body'. don't be so full of yourself and learn to speak for yourself.
Although I disagree with the conclusion drawn in the article you realize he's talking in relation to a study not himself.
so, are you trying to tell me that people such as myself are super-human because we feel the difference? well okay, thanks for the compliment, i guess. i thought it was just having good comprehension skills.
No, I'm telling you that you should read the article first.
The article sucks. It fails to mention that there is also a delay depending on your monitor too, something known as input lag.
Saying that the human body can't react to something less than 215 ms is fine; however, trying to say something like you can't feel the difference between 50 ms and 100-150 ms of ping is complete nonsense. For example, I get about 120-150ms ping to EU servers. I shouldn't feel any delay there vs playing in the U.S. based on what studies say. However, what I forgot to do was also add the cumulative delay from my entire gaming setup. Ping is not the only delay that exists.
Even when we're talking about DotA, a game where you don't need insane reactions, the ping makes a difference. The type of metagame heroes that we see that are more micro intensive make appearances at LAN more often for a very good reason. Heroes like Visage had ridiculous winrates on LAN just because microing birds was way easier without delay. On LAN, it changes the metagame abit in terms of what you can play. Just like how LAN changed the metagame in CS (AWPs become absurdly lethal in CS on LAN because of the fact that you never miss due to registry).
Not to mention there will be variances in your ping throughout the game for different reasons. Even small changes of 20-30 ms are noticeable. So saying that there's no difference between performance on LAN vs Online is hilarious, especially when there's plenty of teams that are successful online, but can't get it done on LAN.
Eh, I play on horribly laggy college internet and I still rarely miss my hookshots or ice paths. The spells I'm more likely to fuck up with high ping are skills like Light strike array, Kunkka torrent and boat, Time lapse, black holes, stuff like that.
EPT
![[image loading]](/staff/TheEmulator/2013/October/SL/SLday1.png)
![[image loading]](/staff/TheEmulator/2013/October/SL/Skillshotchart.png)
![[image loading]](http://dota2gifs.com/gifs/nyxnyxnyx.gif)
