|
|
On February 26 2012 06:44 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:41 Craton wrote:On February 26 2012 06:40 Woony wrote:On February 26 2012 06:37 Redox wrote:On February 26 2012 06:32 Craton wrote:On February 26 2012 06:30 qualla wrote:On February 26 2012 06:28 Slayer91 wrote:Probably not hard to juke people on 200+ ping, just saying  Exactly this... That was where you actually could see how bad ping issues must be for M5! They all kept running to where Irelia was before she dashed for like 0.3-0.4 seconds. 200 ms = .2 seconds. Normal latency is ~80ms (.08), so they have about .12 seconds more delay. If they're missing by .3-.4 seconds it has nothing to do with their ping. Also they play from Russia, their ping should be even worse than for the Western Europeans. 0,3-0,4 sec sounds reasonable. In any case this qualifier showed that cross server tournaments make no sense. Because of this I also didnt like how the commentator was cheering so much just when the biggest flaw of their tournament was highlighted even more. IMO they either need to make it fair (ie. one game on US, one EU) or not allow EU teams at all. The ping difference is generally less for eu to na than the reverse for whatever reason. It would also add a lot of logistical difficulty (read: delays between games), since there's a different client for each region (iirc) and you'd need to switch back and forth 2-3 times. All depends on where you are in NA. From the west coast (like clg.na) you have about 0.2 I think, from east coast (like tsm) it is pretty good. Which is why tsm is playing on eu now so often. it doesnt really make a difference for them.
It also varies alot from day to day! There are days I have absolutely no problem playing on US but there are also others on which i cannot make one decent play.
And for M5 specifically I am pretty sure it is worse than probably even from the west coast to Europe West.
|
On February 26 2012 06:43 Craton wrote:
It is an NA tournament, though.
Meh, I know that's always the final argument but I don't really like it. Either you should run an NA only tournament or if you want european teams at your event you should at least try to hold legitimate qualifiers.
|
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24
|
Well they seemed to be coping fine in all their previous matches... Although those may have been against other EU teams and played on EU servers.
|
On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24
Of course it doesn't decide the games beforehand, but ask any pro player - it's a HUGE handicap at pro level. IMO you can't call qualifiers legitimate if they are run with an one sided ping advantage.
|
On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24
Clearly mono are better than their seed though.
I don't mind EUs having a disvantage in online NA tournaments, though. You want to see more NA in NA tournies anyway.
|
oh man
chau and dan dinh casting
shit's about to get real
|
On February 26 2012 06:53 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24 I don't mind EUs having a disvantage in online NA tournaments, though. You want to see more NA in NA tournies anyway.
That logic is not what we need if we want a cross-region scene.
IMO a better solution would be kinda what ESL did with IEM where you have a fixed number of slots for US/EU (lets say 6 for US and 2 for EU, for example) and to then hold two qualifiers.
|
On February 26 2012 06:53 Woony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24 Of course it doesn't decide the games beforehand, but ask any pro player - it's a HUGE handicap at pro level. IMO you can't call qualifiers legitimate if they are run with an one sided ping advantage.
Well I don't think not letting EU teams in the tournament is a good solution. I think the EU teams would rather play with a disadvantage and have a chance to qualify than not at all. Of course everyone wants live events but it's just not possible given the real world limitations.
|
It's really annoying to see modern games having such issues with international online tournaments/qualifiers. SC2 has the same problem because of the fact that there is no LAN. In wc3 and BW, you could find a neutral host no matter which two countries were playing against each other because of virtual LAN programs like Iccup and Garena. Either LoL needs to find a way to create neutral hosts over a virtual LAN or they need to add more servers that are equal distance away from competitive countries.
For example, like a server in UK would be perfect for USA vs Russia, so in wc3 you would just have someone in the UK host the game on garena and both sides would have ~150 ping. Still not ideal, but much better than ~50ms compared to ~280ms. Honestly, for mono vs m5, EU west would have been pretty close to even ping but because its an american tourney I guess it sucks to force the US teams to play on EU servers. I kinda wish they woulda showed the load screens so we could see the pings, but that's just my estimate based on my experience hosting for different countries in wc3. I assume the NA tourney server is on the west coast? That makes it even worse.
With that said, M5 made bad decisions which ping shouldn't have an effect on, and Mono played great.
|
Some funny Q&A with Dan and Chauster.
|
On February 26 2012 06:58 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:53 Woony wrote:On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24 Of course it doesn't decide the games beforehand, but ask any pro player - it's a HUGE handicap at pro level. IMO you can't call qualifiers legitimate if they are run with an one sided ping advantage. Well I don't think not letting EU teams in the tournament is a good solution. I think the EU teams would rather play with a disadvantage and have a chance to qualify than not at all. Of course everyone wants live events but it's just not possible given the real world limitations.
Yeah I know not having EU teams either sucks but I think that having legitimate qualifiers should be the biggest priority. As I've said, flipping coins for each match or set or having two qualifiers seem like the best options. Yes, they do require more effort but if you want legitimate qualifiers thats what you need to do.
|
I wonder if the commentators are instructed not to mention the ping disparity, I'm surprised Dan Dinh and Chauster don't mention it.
EDIT: Lapaka asking the hard questions :D
|
On February 26 2012 07:03 BlackMagister wrote:
Some funny Q&A with Dan and Chauster.
- hey chauster you say everyone is viable, am I viable?
- no
|
On February 26 2012 07:00 Mios wrote:
EU west would have been pretty close to even ping.
EU West and EU East servers are in the same place (Germany).
|
On February 26 2012 06:58 Woony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:53 Slayer91 wrote:On February 26 2012 06:51 Shikyo wrote:
dunno, my friend with 20ping is 1800 elo in euw and 1900 elo in NA with 180 ping so not sure what to think about that but I doubt the difference is large enough for seed #1 to get DESTROYED by seed 24 I don't mind EUs having a disvantage in online NA tournaments, though. You want to see more NA in NA tournies anyway. That logic is not what we need if we want a cross-region scene. IMO a better solution would be kinda what ESL did with IEM where you have a fixed number of slots for US/EU (lets say 6 for US and 2 for EU, for example) and to then hold two qualifiers.
Good suggestion.
Just to recap:
AL 0-2 Monoesports
M5 0-2 Monoesports
Sypher 0-2 v8
Sk 0-2 EZ
I dont want to say the winning NA teams were bad or dont deserve it, just saying the general tendency is pretty obvious.
I think no decent NA team lost to a EU team in this qualifier with the exception of aaa 2-1 over goose.
|
On February 26 2012 07:06 Winney1907 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 07:00 Mios wrote:
EU west would have been pretty close to even ping. EU West and EU East servers are in the same place (Germany).
Oh wow, I didn't know that. So I guess the names on the 2 servers are irrelevant and they just needed two servers to support the players. Might as well be EU1 and EU2. In that case they really need to have a server closer to the west coast of EU to make a neutral host between EU and USA. Probably UK, maybe Ireland or the west coast of France.
|
It's TSL 3 all over again.
The favourites getting crushed with a massive ping disadvantage and the fans and commentators going nuts and pretending lag wasn't a factor.
The Europeans losing in this tournament meant about as much as the Koreans losing in TSL 3 (nothing).
|
On February 26 2012 07:24 cuppatea wrote:
It's TSL 3 all over again.
The favourites getting crushed with a massive ping disadvantage and the fans and commentators going nuts and pretending lag wasn't a factor.
The Europeans losing in this tournament meant about as much as the Koreans losing in TSL 3 (nothing).
qft sigh
|
Factor sure, but the reason every EU team lost (many of which by a large margin)? Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
