|
On August 22 2014 11:25 Kaneh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2014 17:24 Goumindong wrote:On August 21 2014 16:13 Kinie wrote:
I think the biggest reason why they don't want to do NA West and NA East is because NA has roughly half of the overall population as Europe does. And if we break that down into "reasonable" numbers, that would mean there's probably half as many people playing on US servers as there was in EUW at the time. They added EUNE to try and aleviate that problem, but it didn't help as everyone was playing on EUW, so they had to get more servers added to EUW and build a server farm to house it.
The "best" solution for NA servers would be to move the majority of the servers off the west coast and somewhere closer to the center of the US, most likely in Texas as that's one of the more popular places to build a server farm for online gaming (if memory serves, most MMOs in NA base their servers in Texas), with backup servers on the west and east coast for login purposes. IIRC that wouldn't help. There are no hubs in Texas. Well not quite true, but there aren't any hubs big enough for League. If there are a lot of servers in Texas its for tax and land cost reasons. (for instance WoW datacenters are in New York, Phoenix, LA, and Chicago) If you put something in Texas all the traffic will be routed from New York and LA anyway. (Probably routed from New York to LA to Texas). You won't gain any latency advantage from being in the middle of the US and you might even make it worse. People on the west coast have good connections not because of their physical proximity to the servers, but because LA and Seattle are the second and fourth(?) largest hubs in the US. Everyone on the west coast can go directly to LA or to Seattle and then directly to LA*. On the east coast everything goes through New York (IIRC) which means that if you aren't in New York you go there first, then you go to LA. If you live in Atlanta you go to from ALT to NY to LA. There could be more infrastructure now that allows them to skip the NY/LA jump. But that is how it used to be. *E.G. i sit basically on top of the Seattle hub. My ping to riot is about 12. Anyone who can get to Seattle relatively quickly (iirc there is also a hub in Portland, but not sure about that) can get to Riot about 12 ms later than that. Uhhhh. Houston has been a hub since forever and Dallas is growing so quickly it is a hub as well. Can you not talk about datacenters and Internet connectivity when you don't even know that Texas has the most datacenters outside of California?
It may have the most datacenters outside of California. But it is barely on the map on internet exchange throughput compared to NY, Seattle, Chicago, or LA. Now naturally i don't have private data but well if you do maybe you can enlighten us as to the actual numbers.
What matters is that most people, even people close to Texas, will go to Chicago or New York before heading to Texas. The thing about Texas is that land(and various taxes) in Chicago, Seattle, LA, and New York is expensive. But if you want to put a low latency server in the US its going in LA or New York. Because getting a low latency server is not about how many server farms you put in an area its about where people go in order to get there.
The vast majority of people who have ping problems to any servers have them because they take time to getting to LA or New York since getting from LA to New York will get you right to the other in a jiffy. Putting a server in Texas will only change the function by changing people going to NY then LA instead of NY to Austin. But its not the trip to LA that is causing the issues for you east coasters.
|
Guys I just picked Nidalee randomly, how do I play her now?
|
United States3106 Posts
The reason why NYC, LA, Chicago, and Seattle are major traffic hubs on the internet is because there's like 60 million people in/around those 4 cities. Not to mention those are major transportation, political, telecommunication, and economical hubs. They are established cities that have been around for basically all of the 20th century and are major destinations for international tourists to visit. It's not surprising to see those being major traffic centers for the internet.
In general, the US power and telecommunication's grid isn't equipped to handle the load it's under right now, which is why companies like Google are investing into fiber optics; to improve the connections and make speeds better/faster.
|
On August 22 2014 10:01 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
I just read all of this thread from page 1 until now, haven't been around here much. There's something really significant in this thread that I want to address.
...They buffed MF so much that even shitcombo can win with her? rito?
Oh you mad cuz im stylin on u?
I've always been a monster on ADC, I just didn't like playing it until now because of the random ADC meta fluctuations. I just decided to start playing ADC for real after years of saying "Man, I should main ADC" and it happens to be at a time when champs I like to play (MF, Ashe, Trist) are playable because there are enough strong supports that synergize with them.
Also yeah I did go on a huge 30-3 run with MF in solo queue which catapulted me into diamond.
Related:
+ Show Spoiler +
btw fakesteve jump on more often pls
|
On August 22 2014 13:01 Kinie wrote:
In general, the US power and telecommunication's grid isn't equipped to handle the load it's under right now, which is why companies like Google are investing into fiber optics; to improve the connections and make speeds better/faster.
Actually the US has a shit ton of fiber optics. Enough that it makes Europe look pathetic. Our only issue is the so called "last mile" which is basically the companies that everyone hates (Comcast, etc). The reasons for those companies being what they are have been widely discussed here and elsewhere.
I just wanted to dismiss the myth that our internet system is bad, really it's just the one part that sucks (whence if you have a good local ISP you are the happiest internet user there is).
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 22 2014 13:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 10:01 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
I just read all of this thread from page 1 until now, haven't been around here much. There's something really significant in this thread that I want to address.
...They buffed MF so much that even shitcombo can win with her? rito? Oh you mad cuz im stylin on u? I've always been a monster on ADC, I just didn't like playing it until now because of the random ADC meta fluctuations. I just decided to start playing ADC for real after years of saying "Man, I should main ADC" and it happens to be at a time when champs I like to play (MF, Ashe, Trist) are playable because there are enough strong supports that synergize with them. Also yeah I did go on a huge 30-3 run with MF in solo queue which catapulted me into diamond. Related: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB1D9wWxd2w btw fakesteve jump on more often pls
haha, i will. the odd time I log on you're usually on and you're who I play with!
Fighting games got me all like
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4fcXOvT.gif)
|
I didn't read the clusterfuck but I can tell it was a gross overcomplication of what I was trying to do.
Here's an explanation:
X axis: death per minute for Morgana
Y axis: assists per minute for Morgana
kills are ignored for this illustration
blue = game won
red = game lost
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N2DFsVs.png)
We see that (and this should be super obvious) that for a game which you got high assists and few deaths as Morgana, you are more likely to win the game. It's probably very unlikely for you to lose a game if you got 0.6 assists per minute and only 0.1 assists per minute by looking at this diagram. So, if you got that kind of number in a game yet lost, you may be justified to think your teammates suck. That's the general idea.
|
Here's a plot of GrandInquisitor's "DF" idea, but I divided his DF over game length for normalization.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6Y3HfMm.png)
red - games lost
blue - games won
I think it works OK, but with a bit of data it's possible to produce a better linear combination to suit our purposes.
|
How do you solve the endogeneity issue? (Not for the graphs but for the linear combo)
Edit god damned autocorrect
|
On August 22 2014 12:43 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 11:25 Kaneh wrote:On August 21 2014 17:24 Goumindong wrote:On August 21 2014 16:13 Kinie wrote:
I think the biggest reason why they don't want to do NA West and NA East is because NA has roughly half of the overall population as Europe does. And if we break that down into "reasonable" numbers, that would mean there's probably half as many people playing on US servers as there was in EUW at the time. They added EUNE to try and aleviate that problem, but it didn't help as everyone was playing on EUW, so they had to get more servers added to EUW and build a server farm to house it.
The "best" solution for NA servers would be to move the majority of the servers off the west coast and somewhere closer to the center of the US, most likely in Texas as that's one of the more popular places to build a server farm for online gaming (if memory serves, most MMOs in NA base their servers in Texas), with backup servers on the west and east coast for login purposes. IIRC that wouldn't help. There are no hubs in Texas. Well not quite true, but there aren't any hubs big enough for League. If there are a lot of servers in Texas its for tax and land cost reasons. (for instance WoW datacenters are in New York, Phoenix, LA, and Chicago) If you put something in Texas all the traffic will be routed from New York and LA anyway. (Probably routed from New York to LA to Texas). You won't gain any latency advantage from being in the middle of the US and you might even make it worse. People on the west coast have good connections not because of their physical proximity to the servers, but because LA and Seattle are the second and fourth(?) largest hubs in the US. Everyone on the west coast can go directly to LA or to Seattle and then directly to LA*. On the east coast everything goes through New York (IIRC) which means that if you aren't in New York you go there first, then you go to LA. If you live in Atlanta you go to from ALT to NY to LA. There could be more infrastructure now that allows them to skip the NY/LA jump. But that is how it used to be. *E.G. i sit basically on top of the Seattle hub. My ping to riot is about 12. Anyone who can get to Seattle relatively quickly (iirc there is also a hub in Portland, but not sure about that) can get to Riot about 12 ms later than that. Uhhhh. Houston has been a hub since forever and Dallas is growing so quickly it is a hub as well. Can you not talk about datacenters and Internet connectivity when you don't even know that Texas has the most datacenters outside of California? It may have the most datacenters outside of California. But it is barely on the map on internet exchange throughput compared to NY, Seattle, Chicago, or LA. Now naturally i don't have private data but well if you do maybe you can enlighten us as to the actual numbers. What matters is that most people, even people close to Texas, will go to Chicago or New York before heading to Texas. The thing about Texas is that land(and various taxes) in Chicago, Seattle, LA, and New York is expensive. But if you want to put a low latency server in the US its going in LA or New York. Because getting a low latency server is not about how many server farms you put in an area its about where people go in order to get there. The vast majority of people who have ping problems to any servers have them because they take time to getting to LA or New York since getting from LA to New York will get you right to the other in a jiffy. Putting a server in Texas will only change the function by changing people going to NY then LA instead of NY to Austin. But its not the trip to LA that is causing the issues for you east coasters.
... you know that pretty much all the data that crosses from east/west in the US travels through either denver or dallas now right? just because they're "hubs" doesn't have anything to do with throughput or getting less ping
|
Fakesteve trying to get me with the Merkava baits
|
On August 22 2014 13:50 Goumindong wrote:
How do you solve the endogeneity issue? (Not for the graphs but for the linear combo)
Edit god damned autocorrect
No one cares. No one cares about the validity of the model because we are not making inference from it. Any model we construct can be assessed based purely on prediction error.
|
On August 22 2014 13:51 Kaneh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 12:43 Goumindong wrote:On August 22 2014 11:25 Kaneh wrote:On August 21 2014 17:24 Goumindong wrote:On August 21 2014 16:13 Kinie wrote:
I think the biggest reason why they don't want to do NA West and NA East is because NA has roughly half of the overall population as Europe does. And if we break that down into "reasonable" numbers, that would mean there's probably half as many people playing on US servers as there was in EUW at the time. They added EUNE to try and aleviate that problem, but it didn't help as everyone was playing on EUW, so they had to get more servers added to EUW and build a server farm to house it.
The "best" solution for NA servers would be to move the majority of the servers off the west coast and somewhere closer to the center of the US, most likely in Texas as that's one of the more popular places to build a server farm for online gaming (if memory serves, most MMOs in NA base their servers in Texas), with backup servers on the west and east coast for login purposes. IIRC that wouldn't help. There are no hubs in Texas. Well not quite true, but there aren't any hubs big enough for League. If there are a lot of servers in Texas its for tax and land cost reasons. (for instance WoW datacenters are in New York, Phoenix, LA, and Chicago) If you put something in Texas all the traffic will be routed from New York and LA anyway. (Probably routed from New York to LA to Texas). You won't gain any latency advantage from being in the middle of the US and you might even make it worse. People on the west coast have good connections not because of their physical proximity to the servers, but because LA and Seattle are the second and fourth(?) largest hubs in the US. Everyone on the west coast can go directly to LA or to Seattle and then directly to LA*. On the east coast everything goes through New York (IIRC) which means that if you aren't in New York you go there first, then you go to LA. If you live in Atlanta you go to from ALT to NY to LA. There could be more infrastructure now that allows them to skip the NY/LA jump. But that is how it used to be. *E.G. i sit basically on top of the Seattle hub. My ping to riot is about 12. Anyone who can get to Seattle relatively quickly (iirc there is also a hub in Portland, but not sure about that) can get to Riot about 12 ms later than that. Uhhhh. Houston has been a hub since forever and Dallas is growing so quickly it is a hub as well. Can you not talk about datacenters and Internet connectivity when you don't even know that Texas has the most datacenters outside of California? It may have the most datacenters outside of California. But it is barely on the map on internet exchange throughput compared to NY, Seattle, Chicago, or LA. Now naturally i don't have private data but well if you do maybe you can enlighten us as to the actual numbers. What matters is that most people, even people close to Texas, will go to Chicago or New York before heading to Texas. The thing about Texas is that land(and various taxes) in Chicago, Seattle, LA, and New York is expensive. But if you want to put a low latency server in the US its going in LA or New York. Because getting a low latency server is not about how many server farms you put in an area its about where people go in order to get there. The vast majority of people who have ping problems to any servers have them because they take time to getting to LA or New York since getting from LA to New York will get you right to the other in a jiffy. Putting a server in Texas will only change the function by changing people going to NY then LA instead of NY to Austin. But its not the trip to LA that is causing the issues for you east coasters. ... you know that pretty much all the data that crosses from east/west in the US travels through either denver or dallas now right? just because they're "hubs" doesn't have anything to do with throughput or getting less ping
No it doesn't. LA goes directly to New York in one hop. There is no reason for it to stop in Dallas. Like seriously just trace route something on the east coast.
I mean look. If you're sitting on the hub in NY your ping should be about 30 to LA (on a theoretical limit of about 26) From Seattle to riot its 12 ms ping against a theoretical limit of about 9. Changing the server to Texas will shave about 10 to 15 MS tops from east coast pings if it does anything because everyone will be going to NY first anyway and then maybe straight to Texas.
|
On August 22 2014 13:57 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 13:50 Goumindong wrote:
How do you solve the endogeneity issue? (Not for the graphs but for the linear combo)
Edit god damned autocorrect No one cares. No one cares about the validity of the model because we are not making inference from it. Any model we construct can be assessed based purely on prediction error.
But we are supposedly making inferences about the quality of certain peoples play. That was the idea. That someone who had a better DF was better on a champion.
|
just got dropped hacked out of a normal game.
Who the fuck drophacks normals.
|
The amount of incorrect networking information in the past few pages is really bad. 
|
is the game dead again LOL
|
|
|
So I just had an incredible 45 minute game on Thresh where my team tried to throw as hard as possible the entire time (luckily 5v4 for a chunk because of their junglers connection). Does the game just straight up not exist in matchmaking now? I was dc'd when I got the screen to connect to lobby lol.
|
United States3106 Posts
Yeah, I just got done with winning a game and I didn't see the post-match screen. So that'll probably be a LP for me, le sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
