Analysis of NA, EU, KR, Local latency from NA - Page 2

SecondChance

Australia603 Posts

July 13 2011 13:30 GMT

#21

On July 13 2011 22:22 Not_That wrote:
I want to congratulate the OP for using frames passed between click and action to determine latency. This is the only way that matters. tracert is irrelevant. I hope everyone start using this method to estimate their sc2 latency so that results would actually mean something for discussions.

How is it irrelevant?

Clicking the screen results in the move command being sent as packets of data to the server; whilst the current location of the unit is sent back as it is moving and stopped.

How is any different to a tracert? The tracert simply stamps MS times on each hop the packet takes to get to it's destination.

Also the use of speedtest.net is not really an accurate way of doing it. Who's to say there servers don't experience congestion or latency during your test?

GreEny K

Germany7312 Posts

July 13 2011 13:36 GMT

#22

On July 13 2011 12:33 ehalf wrote:
Interesting. I also live in the US east and my ping to the servers are:
NA:80
EU:150
KR:350

Play on ping with 150 is sometimes noticeable but generally hardly affect the gameplay. But 300ms ping is killing me,

Where in the East? I live in Ohio and I wanted to get an EU account, might be wasting time with 150 ping...

Phaded

Australia579 Posts

July 13 2011 13:39 GMT

#23

Guess I'm not playing on Korea. 360ms cos we go from australia to tokyo to hong kong to korea.

Not_That

287 Posts

July 13 2011 13:47 GMT

#24

On July 13 2011 22:30 SecondChance wrote:

Show nested quote +

It is irrelevant because it is impossible to tracert all the way to the game server. Watching the frames is the only way to know your real latency to the game (which is the only latency that matters).

arbitrageur

Australia1202 Posts

July 13 2011 14:05 GMT

#25

On July 13 2011 22:39 Phaded wrote:
Guess I'm not playing on Korea. 360ms cos we go from australia to tokyo to hong kong to korea.

There have been some posters clamiing they get 200ms to KOR from AUS. Perfectly fine. This is solely due to ISP, I'm guessing. FKN Optus 400ms!!!!

Manaldski

229 Posts

July 13 2011 14:30 GMT

#26

If you are on the US West Coast it should be playable as long as the ping to the korean server is lower then 200 . From Central Europe you can probably get as low as 215 ping and if you tunnel it you can probably lower the ingame delay to about 300ms.

arbitrageur

Australia1202 Posts

July 13 2011 16:15 GMT

#27

On July 13 2011 23:30 Manaldski wrote:
If you are on the US West Coast it should be playable as long as the ping to the korean server is lower then 200 . From Central Europe you can probably get as low as 215 ping and if you tunnel it you can probably lower the ingame delay to about 300ms.

What does tunneling it mean?

bwally

United States670 Posts

July 13 2011 18:26 GMT

#28

On July 13 2011 22:30 SecondChance wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hmmm no, you issue a command on your end and it will only start executing the command once it receives some type of OK. If you watch the video you can obviously see I tell a zergling to move and it won't start moving until it receives the OK back from the server. In this type of RTS engine to save bandwidth only User Input is sent to the server, no unit locations. See this to learn more.

Not_That got it right on "real latency" part but I've explained this like 2 times already. What do I care what the ICMP ping is? What if the game engine adds 100ms+ of latency per command. Since no one knows what the game actually does on the network side the ping only gives you a really rough idea of the latency that is inherent in TCP/UDP, network routing, etc and doesn't account for the game engine's functions. Now if you can reduce ICMP ping to LAN levels and I'll assume like 1ms for now then you can figure out what the engine latency is and you cannot change this so the number is somewhat irrelevant. But over the internet your icmp ping will have a "multiplier" effect on your actual game latency. And if you solely look at the ping to determine whether the latency is acceptable to play you won't have an accurate figure. Because in reality it's much worse with added latency by the game engine.

Speedtest is fine for getting a general ping to the region within a few 100 miles or so. Congestion probably didn't have any effect on my tests, since those "pings" are quite good for me. And if there is congestion the majority of the time then you can't avoid it anyway. But since there is a large difference between Ping and actual game latency it could mean 3 things. Game engine adds latency (which we can guess based on how online synchronous RTS game engines usually work) or battle.net servers are really crap and can't handle the load so their way more congested more than the network around it where I pinged or within 1 hr after doing the ping test the battle.net servers network got congested.

ehalf

408 Posts

July 15 2011 04:28 GMT

#29

On July 13 2011 22:36 GreEny K wrote:

Show nested quote +

Where in the East? I live in Ohio and I wanted to get an EU account, might be wasting time with 150 ping...

I'm in Pittsburgh. I think the most important factor here factor here is which ISP do you use.. I'm a comcast customer and my ping to the EU and KR sucks

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

Analysis of NA, EU, KR, Local latency from NA - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming