EPTReally hope tomorrow will see less problems!
Carmac responds to IEM Criticism: "Bring on the pitchforks…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Mekare
Germany393 Posts
Really hope tomorrow will see less problems! | ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:30 figq wrote: Some computers can have network issues that others don't, due to settings or software. Connection from there to Bnet isn't the same as any other connection from EU to Bnet. So these two arguments aren't convincing at all. Of course, I have no idea what the specs of the computers were, so it could be just that the computers were not good enough, but that would be really unusual. Guess we should wait for further clarification about it. While it's true what you say, the arguement that the lags happen at 200vs200 fights rules out internetlag. Of course there might have been internetrelated lags as well, as they were lagging even in early game. | ||
|
Parsistamon
United States390 Posts
So long as tournaments are held on the internet, there is potential for massive disruptions, which particularly hurt for companies like MLG and ESL which specialize in high-investment short-run events. Today probably constituted a pretty massive loss for ESL, and it's hard to look anywhere other than blizzard (read: Activision) for blame. It's worth noting that the loss here is not only in ad revenue: all the results of this tournament have lost some credibility as a result of potentially skewed group results. That hurts the players in addition to the organizers. | ||
|
delchuu
Germany166 Posts
| ||
|
NekoFlandre
United States497 Posts
Computers ar enot peferct, and nor can a connection be 100% SUPER PERFECT all the time. Understand crap happens, it migh effect us and the players? But can it be avoided, sadly no. | ||
|
JayJay_90
Germany1632 Posts
| ||
|
Freye
Denmark14 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:28 Apollo324 wrote: In other words the portable servers that Blizzard is discussing... The LAN support that people are crying for is asking for public release of (part of) a BNet2.0 client to run in parallel to their client side SC2. This is the standard model for LAN support. The BNet2.0 code is almost certainly written to take advantage of a parallel computing environment rather than a single, relatively small machine. Changing that alone requires significant development resources. Also, it causes a MASSIVE security risk from reverse engineering the BNet2.0 architecture. Finally, the release of such server functionality would cost Blizzard any degree of control on tournament and ladder structures. And whether you agree to how Blizz runs their ladders and tournament contracts, it's their IP and they have the right to protect it. If it really takes advantage of a parallel computing environment, then it should be programmed to add new/more parallels to the environment, which means it's quite simple to have 1 machine only. You just don't add more than 1... It'll be slower than normal with a ton of servers, yeah, but with such little traffic on it, it'll be fast as shit anyway. Also the whole BNet 2.0 can be faked in the protocol, ie. you have no friends etc. It really isn't a development problem... Except they don't want to put > 0 dollars into something they can get away with putting = 0 into (standard business procedure), also it's probably true that they are worried over security issues. I'm not talking about running ladders or managing contracts. I'm just saying from a development standpoint it's a choice of money, not technical difficulty. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
| ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:33 sd_andeh wrote: Indeed, that's the most compelling argument about ... insufficient hardware?... (wow, would be strange). But, I think a couple of the most critical moments of lag with complaints from the players were not during maxed out battles, so I'm not sure it's that.While it's true what you say, the arguement that the lags happen at 200vs200 fights rules out internetlag. Of course there might have been internetrelated lags as well, as they were lagging even in early game. | ||
|
attenzionee
Germany40 Posts
The streamquality suxx like hell - Every sc2 private Stream is much better than the sc2.HD Stream by ESL So many problems with the Computers / Lags / etc... cant believe that there still the same people working since 2 years.. | ||
|
Cocacooh
Norway1510 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:21 obsKura wrote: this was just tweeted: @SC2ZergLair Zenio has agreed to a rematch with NightEnD due to lag problems in the final game of their bo3. Really good sportsmanship from @LiquidZenio. 1 minute ago via web Now thats sportsmanship, mad props to Zenio. | ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:36 NekoFlandre wrote: Meh, stuff happens. Computers ar enot peferct, and nor can a connection be 100% SUPER PERFECT all the time. Understand crap happens, it migh effect us and the players? But can it be avoided, sadly no. This ^ I don't like the fact that players are forced to play under these circumstances though, and games should be postponed or a non-accurate result will occur. People losing games because of it that they would never lose otherwise. However I guess they're on a tight schedule and the games cannot be postponed as then they wouldn't have time to play all the games they need to play in this tournament. So what does one do? No idea, but having players play in order to decide "who's the best" is impossible with lag, sadly. | ||
|
Chengakz
United States163 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:31 Wombat_NI wrote: 'Throughout the entire situation - from the start until after all of his games, he was considerate and understanding and his behaviour was very professional.'- Carmac on Naniwa. Was nice to see this as the amount of negative speculation that was flowing around Nani was a bit over-the-top. So sad about the whole situation. I understand Naniwa's feelings and I know the organizers cannot control everything. I think I reacted more to what Naniwa said that he will never attend another IEM even if he wins this one. I hope it's not true and he only said it in the heat of the moment. For those who are fast to judge, reflect upon yourself: have you never said anything you did not mean when you were frustrated? Good luck to all the players tomorrow! | ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
| ||
EG.Thorzain
Sweden164 Posts
| ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
| ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:37 figq wrote: Indeed, that's the most compelling argument about ... insufficient hardware?... (wow, would be strange). But, I think a couple of the most critical moments of lag with complaints from the players were not during maxed out battles, so I'm not sure it's that. Mhm... well I reacted mostly to the NightEnd game vs Zenio where he obviously lost the entire series due to that one huge battle that the computer couldn't handle (this time it was not the internet, and it was the most important situation of the game). But Grubby having to put down a hatch-block-pylon 3 times for it to actually start warping in has probably to do with internetrelated issues. Either way, my point in all this is that you can't blame Blizzard for this, even though I would very much want to have LAN-mode in the game. The fault is sadly at ESL whether Carmac makes a nice post or not. I've always loved Carmac though ever since his old interview of QuakeWorld legend ParadokS (http://videos.quakeworld.nu/video/dhw07-1on1-with-paradoks-ggl-wire/) xD so I very much appreciate his post. | ||
Darkhorse
United States23455 Posts
(BTW most players are handling this with a great deal of professionalism, such as Zenio and Naniwa. It's really only a select few that are voicing serious complaints.) EDIT: I made a somewhat underinformed post, as I don't really know the condition of the computers used. If it was a computer problem and not a connection problem, I can see why people would blame IEM. Not to the point of boycotting their tourneys though. | ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On January 20 2012 08:42 Thorzain wrote: Everyone i spoke to that are at the event (4-5 players) were telling me that the computers were the issue, that they were crap. Not that the connection was faulty. ^ tataah. Thanks ThorZain | ||
| ||
