This is what's on today's news :
----------
(Bibendus) - Are you going to fix the keyboard/mouse control lag? 90% of custom games are ruined by this.
We will be improving keyboard and mouse control in a future patch, but we can't match the responsiveness of an FPS game with an authoritative server. Keyboard-based unit movement should be as responsive as issuing move orders with the mouse after these changes.
-----------
I'm not sure I had this right, what are they talking about ? Keyboard/Mouseclick events ?
If so, that would make much more abordable custom ui and multiplayer FPS, right ?
...but we can't match the responsiveness of an FPS game with an authoritative server...
This is just bullshit to be honest. Heroes of Newerth (stand alone DotA clone), have little to no delay at all and they run everything through dedicated official servers. Nothing that the clients are not supposed to know are sent. S2 (the creators) are a relatively tiny studio, especially compared to Blizzard. If Blizzard wanted to, they could easily remove lag completely, the game would not need to slow down for everyone when one player lags.
(Disclaimer. I'm just a hobby enthusiast and don't really know anything about client server protocols. But if one small company can do it, why not a bigger one?)
Hmmm, because THAT bigger one have billions of people connected at the same time, probably.
Does that mean I had this right ? It DOES refers to events ? My question still stands unanswered ...
They are referring to the events that detect keyboard strokes & mouse clicks. They are basically saying they can remove the extra lag from the command compared to just right clicking the ground to move the units.
They could technically make it possible to have no lag, but that would mean they would have to redesign their entire structure of hosting custom games. I don't think they are willing to do that, so they probably won't do any client-sided things in the near future.
@Yaos01: Go Well, there's no need to keep every game on the same server. Balance the games out on different servers while still keeping a global chat server that connects everyone on battle.net to each other.
I don't think they will be doing this, of course, since it would require reworking a lot of things from scratch... but I don't understand why they would keep the same system, roughly, as WC3. It was clearly not optimal even though users found other ways to reduce lag/latency outside of ladder. Listchecker (LC) for example.
If Blizzard come good on this, I'll be very pleased! I had actually shelved a project (a multiplayer top down shooter) because the lag issues with WASD control.
The server is not the problem, the problem is how the game is made. There are different ways to realize server-client communication, RTS games generally are made differently than FPS games. FPS games focus on lowest possible delay while RTS concentrate on stability.
Blizzard made Starcraft focus on stability and that's something they can't just change.
An analogy (because I love them):
We have a big car manufacturer and a small plane manufacturer.
Now I ask: "Since the small company is able to make their vehicles fly, why can't the large company's cars fly too?"
Well, they were just not made for it. But the large company's cars are much better on ground than the planes are.
No s3rius don't you know lag is something Blizzard made on purpose it and they could fix it in two seconds if not for BOBBY KOTICK I know this because I took a programming class in Java one time.
But really, the main issue is the lack of client side prediction. And the primary reason there's no prediction is that the game engine cannot possibly predict how arbitrary triggers are going to respond to user input. (There are others - such as the sheer volume of entities that would need to be predicted in an RTS game, versus the one player entity in a FPS game.) The only way it could possibly implement CSP would be to run a complete simulation on the client. And then you have to deal with syncing everything, including the Galaxy virtual machines, which is impossible due to the complexity costs of storing enough state to be able to inject network input into a past state. Most games implementing p2p networking models are very simplistic and deterministic, which the Starcraft 2 engine - with its support for arbitrary scripting and thousands of concurrent entities - is the opposite of. Which is why the blizzard rep correctly stated the input latency of dedicated FPS engines is simply incompatible with Starcraft 2's authoritative server model.
There are lots of reason why their wont improve this.
1# Its not worth investing that much of money coz money income will be less.
2# Editor and game supports all features they required to finish their campaign and the game.
#3 If they invested money and tried to make all support for FPS games, then we would have to wait for this game forever. They cant include features they cant test properly; FPS.
Now, about that delay over bnet. Its bnet's fault. Dont know why but their had same "problem" on old bnet. Only bnet causes delay.
If you would play game over LAN, it wont delay. Even over virtual like such as Hamachi for example.
No s3rius don't you know lag is something Blizzard made on purpose it and they could fix it in two seconds if not for BOBBY KOTICK I know this because I took a programming class in Java one time.
I know - the arbitrary minimum latency.
But I'm sure there's another reason why they have this. Either they can ensure a more consistent lag, or maybe they need less servers to run bnet then.
I'm sure Kotick didn't just say "Let make them angry a little. hrrr. 125ms ping for everyone pls!"
Basically what I was trying to explain is what you explained in more technical details.
I believe that the main reason they stated for the minimum delay was to even things out for people in high ping areas that were competing with people that had lower ping.
Yeah, I can believe that the data input required for Starcraft 2 is higher than that of Heroes of Newerth. I just figured Blizzard could be nice and invest in servers that could handle the load.
Imo it's good enough as it is (not counting WASD etc. input lag), but I do feel a difference and was wondering why it was like it is.
I know - the arbitrary minimum latency.
But I'm sure there's another reason why they have this. Either they can ensure a more consistent lag, or maybe they need less servers to run bnet then.
I'm sure Kotick didn't just say "Let make them angry a little. hrrr. 125ms ping for everyone pls!"
Basically what I was trying to explain is what you explained in more technical details.
----
I can't believe you didn't catch the sarcasm there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is just bullshit to be honest. Heroes of Newerth (stand alone DotA clone), have little to no delay at all and they run everything through dedicated official servers. Nothing that the clients are not supposed to know are sent. S2 (the creators) are a relatively tiny studio, especially compared to Blizzard. If Blizzard wanted to, they could easily remove lag completely, the game would not need to slow down for everyone when one player lags.
(Disclaimer. I'm just a hobby enthusiast and don't really know anything about client server protocols. But if one small company can do it, why not a bigger one?)
@Yaos01: Go
Basically they are going to speed up the response of trigger events involving input devices so that they are more like data events.
They are referring to the events that detect keyboard strokes & mouse clicks. They are basically saying they can remove the extra lag from the command compared to just right clicking the ground to move the units.
They could technically make it possible to have no lag, but that would mean they would have to redesign their entire structure of hosting custom games. I don't think they are willing to do that, so they probably won't do any client-sided things in the near future.
@Yaos01: Go Well, there's no need to keep every game on the same server. Balance the games out on different servers while still keeping a global chat server that connects everyone on battle.net to each other.
I don't think they will be doing this, of course, since it would require reworking a lot of things from scratch... but I don't understand why they would keep the same system, roughly, as WC3. It was clearly not optimal even though users found other ways to reduce lag/latency outside of ladder. Listchecker (LC) for example.
If Blizzard come good on this, I'll be very pleased! I had actually shelved a project (a multiplayer top down shooter) because the lag issues with WASD control.
@Berrala: Go
The server is not the problem, the problem is how the game is made. There are different ways to realize server-client communication, RTS games generally are made differently than FPS games. FPS games focus on lowest possible delay while RTS concentrate on stability.
Blizzard made Starcraft focus on stability and that's something they can't just change.
An analogy (because I love them):
We have a big car manufacturer and a small plane manufacturer.
Now I ask: "Since the small company is able to make their vehicles fly, why can't the large company's cars fly too?"
Well, they were just not made for it. But the large company's cars are much better on ground than the planes are.
No s3rius don't you know lag is something Blizzard made on purpose it and they could fix it in two seconds if not for BOBBY KOTICK I know this because I took a programming class in Java one time.
But really, the main issue is the lack of client side prediction. And the primary reason there's no prediction is that the game engine cannot possibly predict how arbitrary triggers are going to respond to user input. (There are others - such as the sheer volume of entities that would need to be predicted in an RTS game, versus the one player entity in a FPS game.) The only way it could possibly implement CSP would be to run a complete simulation on the client. And then you have to deal with syncing everything, including the Galaxy virtual machines, which is impossible due to the complexity costs of storing enough state to be able to inject network input into a past state. Most games implementing p2p networking models are very simplistic and deterministic, which the Starcraft 2 engine - with its support for arbitrary scripting and thousands of concurrent entities - is the opposite of. Which is why the blizzard rep correctly stated the input latency of dedicated FPS engines is simply incompatible with Starcraft 2's authoritative server model.
@RileyStarcraft: Go
DAMN YOU, KOTICK!!! DAMN YOUUUUU
There are lots of reason why their wont improve this.
1# Its not worth investing that much of money coz money income will be less.
2# Editor and game supports all features they required to finish their campaign and the game.
#3 If they invested money and tried to make all support for FPS games, then we would have to wait for this game forever. They cant include features they cant test properly; FPS.
Now, about that delay over bnet. Its bnet's fault. Dont know why but their had same "problem" on old bnet. Only bnet causes delay.
If you would play game over LAN, it wont delay. Even over virtual like such as Hamachi for example.
I know - the arbitrary minimum latency.
But I'm sure there's another reason why they have this. Either they can ensure a more consistent lag, or maybe they need less servers to run bnet then.
I'm sure Kotick didn't just say "Let make them angry a little. hrrr. 125ms ping for everyone pls!"
Basically what I was trying to explain is what you explained in more technical details.
@s3rius: Go
I believe that the main reason they stated for the minimum delay was to even things out for people in high ping areas that were competing with people that had lower ping.
Only they know. But its probbly some kind of ping sync thing. Similar what Twin said. I guess.
Its macromanagement game so, player without delay would be in great advantage over players with delay.
Yeah, I can believe that the data input required for Starcraft 2 is higher than that of Heroes of Newerth. I just figured Blizzard could be nice and invest in servers that could handle the load.
Imo it's good enough as it is (not counting WASD etc. input lag), but I do feel a difference and was wondering why it was like it is.
Quote from s3rius:
I know - the arbitrary minimum latency.
But I'm sure there's another reason why they have this. Either they can ensure a more consistent lag, or maybe they need less servers to run bnet then.
I'm sure Kotick didn't just say "Let make them angry a little. hrrr. 125ms ping for everyone pls!"
Basically what I was trying to explain is what you explained in more technical details.
----
I can't believe you didn't catch the sarcasm there.