EPTStarcraft II Latency - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
carde
Sweden59 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:39 eksert wrote: I have lowered 200s ~ ping to 80s modifying regedit, but it's too long to explain here  are you sure? isnt bnet responsiveness "capped" to 125ms? | ||
|
Xtar
79 Posts
In game traffic is not routed through Blizzard servers, that would be silly and horribly inefficient. Just because it would be silly and horribly ineffective doesn't mean Blizzard doesn't do it that way. SC2 is routed peer to peer, which has the advantage of neither and the disadvantages of both. Reason they do this is probably to prevent third party servers. | ||
|
carde
Sweden59 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:42 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: are you sure? isnt bnet responsiveness "capped" to 125ms? It was during beta to even things out. If you have less than or equal to 125ms "real" ping, the server saw to it that the in-game ping was 125ms or so. If you had more than 125ms, well, you had more. I am uncertain about if that is still the case, the game feels more responsive, but that might be due to lag-hiding in the client. | ||
|
carde
Sweden59 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:44 Xtar wrote: SC2 has build-in high latency. Amazing micro isn't possible until this is removed. No, EllenPage micro isn't that impressive compared to what is done in other RTS games. It just adds 250 ms to your delay. Imagine playing an FPS game with a ping of 250. We didn't even do that 10 years ago. Just because it would be silly and horribly ineffective doesn't mean Blizzard doesn't do it that way. SC2 is routed peer to peer, which has the advantage of neither and the disadvantages of both. Reason they do this is probably to prevent third party servers. The delay is not 250ms. There is definately less lag than that when you move things. A major advantage with routed P2P is that nobody has to open up and forward ports in their NAT "homerouter" to play. | ||
|
Barundar
Denmark1582 Posts
Very annoying to send your helions away from the zealots, and get a few seconds of lag where you just pray the command went through. | ||
|
Xtar
79 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:49 carde wrote: The delay is not 250ms. There is definately less lag than that when you move things. A major advantage with routed P2P is that nobody has to open up and forward ports in their NAT "homerouter" to play. I believe measurements over claims from random people. It was measured to be around 250 during beta. I think there were even a few respectable and tech savvy people that claim that ping wasn't set to 250 but that 250 was added to your base ping. Now I think that was before the netcode change so maybe they changed that now. But they did a short experiment with 125ms on the US server but then went back to 250 because people didn't notice the difference. Everyone has to rerout ports for every application. It's not an advantage or a reason to set it up like that. Also, people have been playing SC2 for many many months now and they are used to this new latency so they don't notice it anymore. It limits hugely the micro you can pull off. It is why we barely see any micro even from players that compete in the biggest tournaments. | ||
|
kasuya
Spain95 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:39 eksert wrote: I have lowered 200s ~ ping to 80s modifying regedit, but it's too long to explain here i guess we have the time to read it if it's for that purpose... i want less than 200 ms T_T | ||
|
carde
Sweden59 Posts
On November 03 2010 08:06 Xtar wrote: Everyone has to rerout ports for every application. It's not an advantage or a reason to set it up like that. There is no need to open any ports in order to play SC2. It works directly, since it connects to a server from your computer. That is almost always allowed by the firewall. However, for true P2P your computer needs to be accessible from outside, people has to be able to connect to you. That requires configuration of the firewall, if you have one. If not, fine, then it works (well, windows firewall if you have a windows machine will block it too, but there will be a dialog asking if it is OK, which is simple enough to handle for most users). I just tested in game, and while the latency (the delay from when I click somewhere until the unit starts moving) is not 0, it's most definitely not 1/4:th of a second. And what would be the point of adding the latency on top of the already existing latency? From what I read of the in-beta experiments the code tried to keep you around a certain latency, not add to your actual latency. There is a difference. And if you believe in measurements over claims, it's sort of humorous that you are only referring to claims, and have not done any measurements. It is somewhat hard to see what the latency is using wireshark, since the other player is also doing stuff all the time, but perhaps one could set up a test where one player does not do anything at all. Then simply watch the delay from when you send an UDP package to when you get one back. | ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:39 eksert wrote: I have lowered 200s ~ ping to 80s modifying regedit, but it's too long to explain here plz explain how u did it | ||
|
bNy
84 Posts
On November 03 2010 05:02 MandoRelease wrote: The location of the servers are most likely kept hidden, in order to weaken/prevent attacks from ill-disposed people. Well, at least that's what I think. I may be wrong though, but it makes sense to me that Blizzard tries to keep the location of its game servers unknown. You can't hide an IP-adress... Stop watching all those TV-shows. With a network tool you can see all connections (and the IP-adresses), at least all good ones. Think as an IP adress as your mail box that you go out to every morning to get your news. The mail man kinda needs to know the adress to being able to put the news in your little box. If you don't want to show your REAL ip-adress, you can sort of hide it by using a proxy. Then you have lots of middle hands. A connects to B, B connects to C, C connects to B, B connects to A (with 1 proxy). By doing this b and c will have the connection which b will send to you, I'm really tired right now.. SO this might not make any sense at all... Point being, blizzards server is easy to find for anyone who wants too and have some knowledge about how the mighty intraweb works. | ||
|
Siwa
91 Posts
I don't know, just asking. | ||
|
NewbiZ
France28 Posts
Run wireshark Check that bnet protocol is made over UDP, not TCP (wouldn't make sense at all for a game btw) Get the IP of blizzard server ( 195.12.229.166 for me ) Reverse DNS the IP (http://remote.12dt.com/lookup.php), found teliacarrier.com Browse the net to discover that teliacarrier is not directly bnet, just an ip load balancing provider | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
kirkybaby
Korea (South)781 Posts
Modifying the frequency of how often your computer sends ACK packets is LOL wrong. Not really worth arguing since the point is there's nothing the OP can do to change his scenario unless another ISP is available. | ||
|
MegaBUD
Canada179 Posts
Starcraft 2 use UDP... and yes theres a build in lag... probably to lower the stress on their internet services. If you still lag... try to change your router/modem... if its still crap... change your ISP... but here in north america, internet services arent that bad. Also do not confuse lag and when your computer is too slow to run the game. | ||
|
_Vaast_
Canada1 Post
i have an Ati Mobility Radeon HD 5730 6 gigs ram and a cpu Intel Core i7 Q740 1.73Ghz i see better performance of starcraft 2 when i sets the catalyst control center as: Paramètre 3D: Optimal Quality Mipmapping: High Quality Anticrénelage: 8X Mode anticrénelage: Super sample AA Filtre anisotrope: 16X | ||
|
Toss.Pro-
83 Posts
What you seem to be talking about addresses FPS issues. This thread was best answered by the TCPack post in page 1, post 3 or 4. Best to set the CCC to use "program settings" and make these changes in the starcraft app itself. | ||
|
Allscorpion
United Kingdom319 Posts
On February 17 2011 08:10 Toss.Pro- wrote: Didn't realize this thread was buried in the pet cemetery... What you seem to be talking about addresses FPS issues. This thread was best answered by the TCPack post in page 1, post 3 or 4. Best to set the CCC to use "program settings" and make these changes in the starcraft app itself. CCC? | ||
|
CyberPitz
United States428 Posts
On February 17 2011 08:10 Toss.Pro- wrote: Didn't realize this thread was buried in the pet cemetery... What you seem to be talking about addresses FPS issues. This thread was best answered by the TCPack post in page 1, post 3 or 4. Best to set the CCC to use "program settings" and make these changes in the starcraft app itself. No...if you look a few posts above yours, the first page is filled with misinformation. On November 03 2010 23:03 kirkybaby wrote: Yeah be very mindful of what people tell you in this thread. Yes SC2 (like all internet games) runs on UDP, and not TCP for the actual game data. TCP optimizers are, for the most part, horseshit since you cannot change the delay of the line by adjusting settings on your computer. If you have high latency in this day and age, it's almost certainly a result of your ISP, and is out of your control. Modifying the frequency of how often your computer sends ACK packets is LOL wrong. Not really worth arguing since the point is there's nothing the OP can do to change his scenario unless another ISP is available. It's not good to keep spreading false information...the people on the internet that don't know better will eat it up (No offense, I love everybody) | ||
| ||
