|
On January 21 2012 20:27 Tabashi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 19:21 Bashnek wrote:On January 21 2012 18:34 Tabashi wrote:
And btw... Why is Carmac saying they're using 2x100MB lines, one for the players and one for the stream? It's the UPLOAD that is important for streaming. And you def don't need 100MB up to stream at even 1080p. They don't need more than like 5MB up per stream. Since there are 2 streams, an upload speed of 10MB/s would be more than enough. Paying too much for stuff they don't need if you ask me. It's like saying "I paid a fortune for this, so it must be good" Well no, price != quality.
Uhh yeah... theres 3 different games being played, they all have multiple streams too remember? And theres a different stream for alot of languages, so alot more than just 2 streams buddy. so uhh... yeah. they probs DO need one just for all the streams. I clearly explained why they DON'T need 100MB only for streaming. Even if I was wrong on the number of streams, that doesn't change the fact they're just throwing with money. VERY simple maths: Question:How many streams could you host on a 100MB connection knowing that you need 5MB per stream? Info:- 5MB required per stream (for 1080p!) - 100MB connection availiable Process:100/5 = 20 (Wow, that was easy!) Answer:They could host 20 streams on that connection. Is that necessary? No, because not all the streams are hosted at the Arena in Kiev. In fact, most of them aren't hosted from there out. So it's a waste of money. I kept it on an elementary school level because I know the internet is full of kids (and idiots).
The 100 mbit streaming line belongs to the arena and not IEM. I don't really know why you're even trying to prove why It isn't needed, its good for the arena cause they wouldn't have to upgrade it if more streams were needed.
|
I dont know why is everyone is so obsessed with LAN mode, mostly lags are due to provider issues (which are not uncommon in certain countries). SC2 does not need a LAN mode in my eyes. what would it change? and even then problems can occur because some switches are overloaded, because on events like these a shitload of computers are operating on the same network.
|
On January 21 2012 21:49 arkedos wrote:
I dont know why is everyone is so obsessed with LAN mode, mostly lags are due to provider issues (which are not uncommon in certain countries). SC2 does not need a LAN mode in my eyes. what would it change? and even then problems can occur because some switches are overloaded, because on events like these a shitload of computers are operating on the same network.
In all fairness, LAN is useful in the sense that it minimizes the number of sources that problem could arise from. Currently, the players have to connect to B.Net, and as developed as B.Net is, there is a possibility of troubles occurring with the connection to B.Net. Instead, by having LAN, it removes the connection to B.net as a potential problem, thus making it that much easier to isolate the problem should a problem arise. Also, generally, LAN tends to be less laggy because there are only a few people on an isolated network instead of millions on a large network.
|
On January 21 2012 21:49 arkedos wrote:
I dont know why is everyone is so obsessed with LAN mode, mostly lags are due to provider issues (which are not uncommon in certain countries). SC2 does not need a LAN mode in my eyes. what would it change? and even then problems can occur because some switches are overloaded, because on events like these a shitload of computers are operating on the same network.
Do you not agree with bridges or pedestrian crossings or parachutes as well? You know, things that bypass problems that may occur?
|
On January 21 2012 21:49 arkedos wrote:
I dont know why is everyone is so obsessed with LAN mode, mostly lags are due to provider issues (which are not uncommon in certain countries). SC2 does not need a LAN mode in my eyes. what would it change? and even then problems can occur because some switches are overloaded, because on events like these a shitload of computers are operating on the same network.
When SC2 first came out I didnt think it would be that big of a deal either. Maybe that there would be one tournament in a year that would have some internet issues. But no, I think there have been more tournaments with internet issues than without.
|
I like the they do their business, it's very professional and they want to have the best of the best conditions, but there will always be minor issues to a certain degree that is unforeseeable and while its fair to criticize someone for that, just keep in mind what they do for everyone and what they do to make it a great tournament. 
|
On January 21 2012 21:56 blahman3344 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 21:49 arkedos wrote:
I dont know why is everyone is so obsessed with LAN mode, mostly lags are due to provider issues (which are not uncommon in certain countries). SC2 does not need a LAN mode in my eyes. what would it change? and even then problems can occur because some switches are overloaded, because on events like these a shitload of computers are operating on the same network. In all fairness, LAN is useful in the sense that it minimizes the number of sources that problem could arise from. Currently, the players have to connect to B.Net, and as developed as B.Net is, there is a possibility of troubles occurring with the connection to B.Net. Instead, by having LAN, it removes the connection to B.net as a potential problem, thus making it that much easier to isolate the problem should a problem arise. Also, generally, LAN tends to be less laggy because there are only a few people on an isolated network instead of millions on a large network.
The other issue with LAN play is that it means the tournament isn't shut down due to internet problems. Matches can be played and then cast from replays later so you don't end up with the tournament falling way behind schedule. I have no idea what's been going on at IEM Kiev since I've not been following it, but it's happened at a few other tournaments, most notably IPL. Since there wasn't a LAN mode, you had spectators at the venue, players all there and ready to go, and no matches to play. (Of course, we got the Boxer v HuK BW showmatch out of the deal.)
|
On January 20 2012 06:39 Adebisi wrote:
WhiteRA calling it "playable" is just wrong IMO. Any amount of lag is just unacceptable, I really think Blizzard needs to step in and provide some kind of portable LAN functionality or tournament servers, I don't understand how people can take SC2 seriously when thousands and thousands of dollars are riding on games where there is lag, it devalues the competitiveness of the game.
I really feel this is more Blizzard's fault than IEMs...
Props to Carmac for being transparent on the issue.
edit: Sounds like its because the computers are poor, that's a shame, I still think the LAN issues still stand though.
I completely agree with you Simon :D
Blizzard doesn't seem to care about tournament play, when I saw Naniwa's Pov I saw lots and lots of chat windows... that must annoying as hell.
|
Too many observers? The last game of MMA vs. Beast (OMG, spoilers!) was pretty damning...two observers lagged out, and when the game ended, you had 6 or 7 observers in the game.
I think you should have a dedicated observer, and have multi-language cast from that observer stream with localized overlays.
|
So im wondering after watching the interview with Nightend. Is it true that a decision was made for a straight up regame first, and then the decision was changed into giving Zenio 2-1 making it extended bo5 ? Would really like a clear answer on that
|
BNet is so laggy lately. GG Blizz.
|
If you listen to Nightend's interview, he says it was 100% computer issues, not BNET or the network... Furthermore, the IEM admins just let TL basically tell them how to handle the Nightend vs. Zenio situation, not exactly an unbiased third party (though this is in the words of Nightend, not an unbiased party himself obviously). Both are clear examples of incompetence going on at the event...
|
I actually think this is an amazing post by Carmac letting us know a bit more about it and of course these things happen so please don't give to much anger/ hate guys!!!
|
On January 23 2012 01:55 StanleyElite wrote:
I actually think this is an amazing post by Carmac letting us know a bit more about it and of course these things happen so please don't give to much anger/ hate guys!!!
same same. I'm sure they'll do better next time
|
respect for carmac/iem. always good when organizations address the problems instead of leaving us unaware
similar to ipl, they do it great too
|
On January 21 2012 20:27 Tabashi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 19:21 Bashnek wrote:On January 21 2012 18:34 Tabashi wrote:
And btw... Why is Carmac saying they're using 2x100MB lines, one for the players and one for the stream? It's the UPLOAD that is important for streaming. And you def don't need 100MB up to stream at even 1080p. They don't need more than like 5MB up per stream. Since there are 2 streams, an upload speed of 10MB/s would be more than enough. Paying too much for stuff they don't need if you ask me. It's like saying "I paid a fortune for this, so it must be good" Well no, price != quality.
Uhh yeah... theres 3 different games being played, they all have multiple streams too remember? And theres a different stream for alot of languages, so alot more than just 2 streams buddy. so uhh... yeah. they probs DO need one just for all the streams. I clearly explained why they DON'T need 100MB only for streaming. Even if I was wrong on the number of streams, that doesn't change the fact they're just throwing with money. VERY simple maths: Question:How many streams could you host on a 100MB connection knowing that you need 5MB per stream? Info:- 5MB required per stream (for 1080p!) - 100MB connection availiable Process:100/5 = 20 (Wow, that was easy!) Answer:They could host 20 streams on that connection. Is that necessary? No, because not all the streams are hosted at the Arena in Kiev. In fact, most of them aren't hosted from there out. So it's a waste of money. I kept it on an elementary school level because I know the internet is full of kids (and idiots).
This post is so much selfownage, I cant even explain all points to you xD ...better keep on doing elementary School maths cause its obvious that you have no clue of anything else out there. Srsly, why are you posting this?
And thx Carmac for the explains, but announces like this shouldnt be commented too much, cause most of the People doesnt know what they are talking about when they see a number and say "Oh my god they are sooo dumb, they dont need that connection!"...oh yeah, a real Brainer there...
|
What people must understand is that shit happens. Can't believe how whiny the SC2 players have started to become the past few months. IEM did the best they could in order to resolve the issue. What more can you ask of them? It's the same in any sport.
Yes, I can understand that people get frustrated when a lot of money is on the line but Naniwa got his rematches and everyone was playing with a little bit of lag. It was all fair and square and I'm sure IEM will try even harder next time to prevent things like this from happening. I just think people are so unappreciative of all the hard work the people behind events like these actually put down in order to make sure an event runs as smooth as humanly possible. Creds to IEM and Carmac.
|
On January 21 2012 18:04 MrTng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 08:30 zyce wrote:
What kind of bandwidth was the tournament using, and what kind of connection were they using? I've never heard of a 100mbit wireline connection. That's an increment typically reserved for data center bandwidth.
Either I'm completely misreading this part of your post or you have no idea what you're talking about. I have a 30mbit line myself and that's one of the cheaper options. If I wanted to I could get a 50mbit line for some euros more. 100mbit isn't really all that much anymore.
50/100mbit speeds are usually only offered to end-users. For an arena like the one where IEM was located, we would likely be providing that bandwidth over two dedicated OC-3s which aree 155.52Mbit/s.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Carrier_transmission_rates
|
Overall, the tournament quality seemed plain awful. Where was the shot of the crowds? Was it that abysmal of a tournout that it wasn't worth showing? Absolutely no excitement, and it felt like an online tournament. And hearing the commentators say "seems like the crowd is pretty excited" doesn't make up for it.
|
it must be kept in mind that this was held in the Ukraine; personally I still think that Ukraine is still more of a CS1.6 nation than a SC2 one, despite the number of high level SC2 players. Furthermore, the event was hosted in English, and it doesn't seem as though most Ukrainians can understand English that well - The Ukrainian 1.6 team, for example, needed a translator during interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
