|
taking credit for ddosing on twitter is like the dumbest thing i've ever seen.
yes, let's make it easier for the FBI to arrest us for a felony crime so we can go to jail.
|
If they're sophisticated enough to mastermind a ddos attack I doubt they'll use a traceable IP to post about it on twitter...
|
On August 22 2014 14:02 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 13:51 Kaneh wrote: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.
Man. You keep putting out some really bad information. Just because its one routing 'hop' doesn't mean it doesn't go through those places. It just has a repeater instead of a router. It has to go through some fiber somewhere, and people sure aren't digging straight from NY to LA.
here's LEVEL3's major network map. Note how denver, dallas and houston are pretty much the 'chokepoints' going east/west.
http://maps.level3.com/default/
There are Major nodes in Dallas. There are Major nodes in Houston. Not just LEVEL3 but AT&T and Sprint and other tier1 ISPs. The issue is and will always be imperfect routing. For the vast majority of east coast users, servers in dallas would actually be a good ~40ms difference instead of your theoretical 10-15ms.
and goddam stop contradicting yourself. You say dumb things like "You won't gain any latency advantage from being in the middle of the US and you might even make it worse." then later go on to say "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."
EDIT:: real world proof... go on any CS:GO or TF2 server and check the pings...
|
On August 22 2014 15:08 Kaneh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 14:02 Goumindong wrote:On August 22 2014 13:51 Kaneh wrote: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. Man. You keep putting out some really bad information. Just because its one routing 'hop' doesn't mean it doesn't go through those places. It just has a repeater instead of a router. It has to go through some fiber somewhere, and people sure aren't digging straight from NY to LA. here's LEVEL3's major network map. Note how denver, dallas and houston are pretty much the 'chokepoints' going east/west. http://maps.level3.com/default/There are Major nodes in Dallas. There are Major nodes in Houston. Not just LEVEL3 but AT&T and Sprint and other tier1 ISPs. The issue is and will always be imperfect routing. For the vast majority of east coast users, servers in dallas would actually be a good ~40ms difference instead of your theoretical 10-15ms. and goddam stop contradicting yourself. You say dumb things like Show nested quote +"You won't gain any latency advantage from being in the middle of the US and you might even make it worse." then later go on to say Show nested quote +"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." EDIT:: real world proof... go on any CS:GO or TF2 server and check the pings... Give him a break, he's an economist, not a computer scientist.
|
On August 22 2014 15:08 Kaneh wrote:
EDIT:: real world proof... go on any CS:GO or TF2 server and check the pings...
I'm surprised it took this long for some good old anecdotal(but great, in this case) evidence to pop up. Back when I played ET/RTCW/1.6, Dallas servers were all the fucking rage, because us east coasters would ping generally between like 50-80, and the west coasters would ping like 40-60, which allowed us to play matches/scrims in a far more fair environment than an NYC or LA server where one team's ping average is 100+ vs the other team's sub 30.
I ran tracerts to every competitive server in ET when I was playing it really seriously, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that my west coast routing was not X->NYC->LA, it was X->Chicago->some stuff I can't remember->Dallas->more filler->LA.
If Riot put a server in Chicago I would get like 15 ping to it instead of 100-120. If they put it in NYC or DC or I'd still get like 20-30. You can test this shit so easily by going and ping testing the speakeasy speedtest servers spread around the country.
|
United States3106 Posts
Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
|
On August 22 2014 14:59 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: If they're sophisticated enough to mastermind a ddos attack I doubt they'll use a traceable IP to post about it on twitter... nothing's untraceable with enough subpoenas and manpower. Plus, by revealing their Twitter, all it takes is one slip-up and they're caught. For example, say one member of their group accidentally access their Twitter with their phone, it's pretty easy to catch them from there.
don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the last guy to do these massive ddos attacks ended up getting caught.
The "bug" regarding Gnar's W not stunning is (I'm assuming) due to the cc buffering. I hope them fixing this means they're removing CC buffering.
|
On August 22 2014 15:38 Kinie wrote: Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons.
If the idea was to get an east-ish server, Dallas isn't changing much. They'd probably go NYC or DC or mayyyybe ATL. Also what the fuck does 4 seasons have to do with server location?
|
On August 22 2014 15:57 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 15:38 Kinie wrote: Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons. If the idea was to get an east-ish server, Dallas isn't changing much. They'd probably go NYC or DC or mayyyybe ATL. Also what the fuck does 4 seasons have to do with server location? Probably cooling system design. Over a year the system would operate anywhere between like 30-85% capacity on average. Easier and more efficient to design a system that can operate within a smaller range.
Kinda sucks that my quest for diamond could be foiled by ddos though, but what can you do. 1 week left to hit diamond, and it looks like mornings/early afternoons are my only chance to play.
|
On August 22 2014 16:35 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 15:57 red_ wrote:On August 22 2014 15:38 Kinie wrote: Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons. If the idea was to get an east-ish server, Dallas isn't changing much. They'd probably go NYC or DC or mayyyybe ATL. Also what the fuck does 4 seasons have to do with server location? Probably cooling system design. Over a year the system would operate anywhere between like 30-85% capacity on average. Easier and more efficient to design a system that can operate within a smaller range. Kinda sucks that my quest for diamond could be foiled by ddos though, but what can you do. 1 week left to hit diamond, and it looks like mornings/early afternoons are my only chance to play.
What happens in one week?
|
Pardon my ignorance but @ ryu what is cc buffering?
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
On August 22 2014 17:30 schmutttt wrote: Pardon my ignorance but @ ryu what is cc buffering? Not sure but I think he meant that Gnar's W animation takes a while and therefore it didn't work properly and didn't stun people.
I might be wrong.
|
11589 Posts
cc buffering is a window between stacked CC abilities in which a character can act, giving them a chance to change their position with flash, an escape spell, etc.
basically, it's supposed to avoid a situation where someone is unable to act for more than the duration of a single CC because chain stuns are anti-fun or something
|
On August 22 2014 15:08 Kaneh wrote:
EDIT:: real world proof... go on any CS:GO or TF2 server and check the pings...
fair enough
On August 22 2014 17:30 schmutttt wrote: Pardon my ignorance but @ ryu what is cc buffering?
There are two types of CC buffering. One is a player skill issue which isn't what is being talked about. This is where you buffer an incoming CC by performing an action that won't be interrupted. Like using Cait's Q so that you're in the animation for the majority of the stun.
The other thing is where actions taken between overlapping hard CC will still execute. Its done so that people in high latency situations who react to a stun ability still get their reaction ability off. What happens is that if you're CC'd and you queue up an action. That actual will occur at the end of the CC. That action occurs at the end of the CC regardless of whether or not another CC is stacked upon it.
With gnar this was preventing his combo. Because someone would say Flash after getting stunned by his W. Then Gnar would use his ultimate stun but the flash would go off as they were being move blocked by his ultimate and prevent them from going into a wall.
|
On August 22 2014 17:42 yamato77 wrote: cc buffering is a window between stacked CC abilities in which a character can act, giving them a chance to change their position with flash, an escape spell, etc.
basically, it's supposed to avoid a situation where someone is unable to act for more than the duration of a single CC because chain stuns are anti-fun or something And then you properly chain CC somebody with something liss R>W about a second later and they get off a flash, but still take W damage and are rooted.....
Added way more problems than it fixed TBH. Flashes and stuff shouldn't go off unconditionally at the end of a CC. Queuing is okay I think, but the implementation needs work, although it's been like this for years now so I doubt anything will change.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
I know how to fix all the problems. Remove summoners spells, flash, ghost, cleanse and everything is fine now and require more skill and you need to pay more attention about positioning and ganks.
|
On August 22 2014 17:15 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 16:35 Amui wrote:On August 22 2014 15:57 red_ wrote:On August 22 2014 15:38 Kinie wrote: Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons. If the idea was to get an east-ish server, Dallas isn't changing much. They'd probably go NYC or DC or mayyyybe ATL. Also what the fuck does 4 seasons have to do with server location? Probably cooling system design. Over a year the system would operate anywhere between like 30-85% capacity on average. Easier and more efficient to design a system that can operate within a smaller range. Kinda sucks that my quest for diamond could be foiled by ddos though, but what can you do. 1 week left to hit diamond, and it looks like mornings/early afternoons are my only chance to play. What happens in one week? Moving out to eastern Canada for work. Can expect higher ping, unfamiliar setup, and lack of time to make getting to diamond much, much more difficult.
|
I've just disappointed myself.
I started Cloth 5 with Trynd against Irelia :'(
|
United States3106 Posts
On August 22 2014 16:35 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 15:57 red_ wrote:On August 22 2014 15:38 Kinie wrote: Chicago would be nice, but I'd be hesitant to put one here simply because we experience all 4 seasons of weather here, where-as in Texas it's basically either egg-cooking hot in the summer or a very reasonable 60-70 degrees fahrenheit (15-20 degrees Celcius for the EU people) for the other 3 seasons. If the idea was to get an east-ish server, Dallas isn't changing much. They'd probably go NYC or DC or mayyyybe ATL. Also what the fuck does 4 seasons have to do with server location? Probably cooling system design. Over a year the system would operate anywhere between like 30-85% capacity on average. Easier and more efficient to design a system that can operate within a smaller range. Kinda sucks that my quest for diamond could be foiled by ddos though, but what can you do. 1 week left to hit diamond, and it looks like mornings/early afternoons are my only chance to play.
The fewer variables to worry about the better. 4 seasons means you have to have a center able to deal with blistering cold, potentially heavy snowfall, rather sudden thunderstorms, heavy rainfall, sweltering heat and humidity, strong winds and even hail. All of which have the potential to disrupt telephone lines, power lines, or even flood/destroy the building.
In Texas you wouldn't have to worry about the cold or snow, and the same threat of tornadoes there is about the same as it is in Chicago.
|
|
|
|