EPTWith all that said, I don't see why they can't just cache the packets when an observer lags, and let the game continue. When the observer stops lagging, just send them everything they missed and let the client catch up. Aside from the increased server memory footprint issues (to cache the previous X seconds worth of packets), this seems like it should be possible, as replays can process updates at up to 6x speed with no problems.
Observers, Blizzard, and Esport - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Badred
Canada129 Posts
With all that said, I don't see why they can't just cache the packets when an observer lags, and let the game continue. When the observer stops lagging, just send them everything they missed and let the client catch up. Aside from the increased server memory footprint issues (to cache the previous X seconds worth of packets), this seems like it should be possible, as replays can process updates at up to 6x speed with no problems. | ||
|
PeRk
United States73 Posts
On August 17 2010 08:54 Skillz_Man wrote: I have seen this done in other games, and SC2 with obs felt slower... And I knew they shouldn't really effect it, so that's probably why. I am really speachless at the path that B.net is taking. It definetly is missing the most obvious and easy to implement feutures. So this leaves me to wonder, what's the problem: -Blizz B.net staff aren't very educated -Takes up too much to do, and rather work on something more important -Do you really want chatrooms idea Too much stuff is missing, and to be honest, Im starting to doubt the Blizz team. They are just so slow with implementing relatively easy things to do; from my perspective atleast. Another thing that bugs me, is they say they are listening to the community, but some of their decisions are unbearable. Chatrooms, I cannot understand why they wouldn't implement something so easy... I just feel their dodging some really important things. Maybe I just don't know anything, but many others have an opinion like me. You need to understand chat rooms aren't just write a few lines of code in an afternoon and be done with it. It DOES take time and honestly, I don't care enough about chat rooms for a delayed release. | ||
|
aike
United States1629 Posts
 | ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:36 aike wrote: The observers DO send data back. As an observer (Or in replays) You can switch to the view of one of the other observers in the game. I think this is a great feature so it should stay Yeah, but they still don't need to be synchronized to (= can create lag for) the players. | ||
|
tok
United States691 Posts
Any tournament that streams as they obs a game doesn't realize how easy it would be to cheat as a player. All you'd have to do is have a laptop with the streaming site open, bam there wouldn't be any way to prove you were watching. | ||
|
Ome
Canada157 Posts
| ||
|
Ighox
Norway580 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:43 tok wrote: Tournaments just need to be less obsessed with having 5 or more obs in a tournament game. There only needs to be 1 to get the spectator replay, and maybe 1 for the referee. Any more than that is just overkills. Exactly. While yes, the current system on battle.net is pretty bad and I can't really say anything good about battle.net, I think tournament admins should step up and just decide on 1-2 official streamers (anyone else who would want to stream, should just restream it) or just start casting the replays. HDH and king of the beta tournament were both replay casts, and I'm pretty sure there aren't many people that thinks the tournament was less fun because it was replays and not live. When I watch a tournament where there's suddenly like 15 observers in a game I really feel sorry for the players. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:21 PeRk wrote: You need to understand chat rooms aren't just write a few lines of code in an afternoon and be done with it. It DOES take time and honestly, I don't care enough about chat rooms for a delayed release. i write you the code for a chatroomsystem with few lines of code in one afternoon.... | ||
|
gondolin
France332 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:16 Badred wrote: From a design standpoint, the reason you can't let laggy observers get de-synced in a game is because each packet (it doesn't matter if it's tcp or udp) only contains *updates* to the game status and not the complete game status. Yes, I agree with that, but packet losses are very rare. Usually what happen with UDP is that the packets do not arrive in the same order, or that one packet take a long time to arrive, but it will rarely get loss. For a player waiting for a packet is a blocking point, it is usually faster to request a new packet, but this is not a problem for an observer. As you said, this can be handled by a cache (and the cache need only to be at the user level if we don't care about packet loss), in fact there is probably a cache already implemented to handle packets arriving in the wrong order. Now if there is a packet loss, the observer will de-sync, but usually this happen when the network condition is so bad that the observer will create lag anyway if he stays. To be fair I never wrote huge multiplayer project using udp, so I may be wrong about this, but in my experience udp packets eventually do arrive (except when there are some problem with the MTU and thus but it will be detected at the IP level anyway). | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:21 PeRk wrote: You need to understand chat rooms aren't just write a few lines of code in an afternoon and be done with it. It DOES take time and honestly, I don't care enough about chat rooms for a delayed release. It takes soooo much time that they've been implemented since 1997. Are you serious? | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
All in all I am a bit disappointed by the lack of feature for esports in SC2. Everyone is talking about the missing chat channels, but the preceding features are important too, and would help alleviate a lot of controversy. What do you think? Am I missing something? The point is that Blizzard does not care about the best product possible, or the community. They care about making money. The only time they are going to DO something for us is when the complaining reaches the major gaming sites like IGN as news, then they will do something for PR. There are literally hundreds of enhancements that could be done quite easily and take very little time, it's just that Blizzard's project leads do not care. Greg Canessa had a vision, that was shown at Blizzcon. He created his vision, and that's what we are stuck with. | ||
|
gondolin
France332 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:36 aike wrote: The observers DO send data back. As an observer (Or in replays) You can switch to the view of one of the other observers in the game. I think this is a great feature so it should stay Oh, I was not aware of that, thanks for mentioning it. On September 06 2010 10:40 butterbrain wrote: Yeah, but they still don't need to be synchronized to (= can create lag for) the players. Yes, you can either sync all observers with different informations from the player (but this would be a mess), or just let the laggy oberver lag/desync (so his view would lag/desync correspondingly). There would no really be a need for a cache by observer, if they send only information about where their screen is and their selection, you don't care if you lose some of their packets. | ||
|
PeRk
United States73 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:57 skeldark wrote: i write you the code for a chatroomsystem with few lines of code in one afternoon.... Oh please, if battle.net launched with a chat room like that people would just complain. Saying chat rooms have been around for years is a stupid argument. | ||
|
Gingerninja
United Kingdom1339 Posts
| ||
|
gondolin
France332 Posts
On September 06 2010 10:54 Ighox wrote: While yes, the current system on battle.net is pretty bad and I can't really say anything good about battle.net, I think tournament admins should step up and just decide on 1-2 official streamers (anyone else who would want to stream, should just restream it) or just start casting the replays. Yes, but for tourmanents officials, more streamer = more publicity, IEM explicitely said they let lot of streamers in the beta for publicity, and that now they are known they will restrict the amount of streamers. And since the audience for sc2 is international, it makes sense to have at least a streamer by region (NA, Europe, Asia). Anyway the best solution would be to have a way to relay the game data (it would take less bandwith than a video stream while retaining the same liberty as a conventional observer). I am pretty sure they will be implemented sooner or later, just we may have not to count on blizzard for that... | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On September 06 2010 11:09 PokePill wrote: The point is that Blizzard does not care about the best product possible, or the community. They care about making money. The only time they are going to DO something for us is when the complaining reaches the major gaming sites like IGN as news, then they will do something for PR. There are literally hundreds of enhancements that could be done quite easily and take very little time, it's just that Blizzard's project leads do not care. Greg Canessa had a vision, that was shown at Blizzcon. He created his vision, and that's what we are stuck with. How long have you been around? Obviously not very long if that's how you feel... | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On September 06 2010 09:58 theqat wrote: The people working on bnet aren't understaffed or underfunded--they just have the wrong priorities :\ If their director pointed them in the right direction they could crank this stuff out. Yep, there are several small yet useful features that could be added to BNet & replays that would make the experience much more enjoyable. For instance, as you already know, the custom game lobby is pretty much unusable. This is much a sacrilege IMO. I'm not huge on competitve play myself because I'm bad at the game but I love obs'ing random games (at least, I did in WC3) or playing custom maps. Both of these are impossible at the moment unless I want to play the same 25 maps all the time. This simple feature is what kept me playing SC and WC3 years after I had gotten bored with melee games. At this rate I will only be buying the games for single player and the rest of the time I can watch streams without owning the game... In addition : You can't hide replay time. You can't slow down replays (yet you could in beta...). You can't make a private game. Observers slowing down games (well, obviously since that is the point of the thread). Nevermind chat rooms, these are just as important IMO and relatively easy to implement. | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On September 06 2010 11:51 PH wrote: How long have you been around? Obviously not very long if that's how you feel... Been around what? TL/SC2? ~ 3 Years Blizzard Games? ~10 years | ||
|
mmdmmd
722 Posts
I await the day that some major sc2 final gets DDOS. Forcing online only is a major fail. User was warned for this post | ||
|
freshiie22
Canada132 Posts
| ||
| ||
