Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

lolesports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#151

Post by grog454 »

tylerhou wrote: post #146
grog454 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is independent of lockstep vs. predictive and more to do with topology. SC2 (and most RTSs) are peer to peer, there is no server game state, just two clients that synchronize to each other. In that case, one client lagging will absolutely effect another. Also in that case, its incredibly difficult to not have both clients simulating full game state. Prediction could mitigate that (and possibly does, even in sc2)…

Source on SC2 being peer to peer? I see it's server-client based. https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/145084-starcraft-2-netcodin...

The thread you linked reasonably concludes its "routed" P2P. In other words, P2P with, (1) a forced route through, and (2) a form of network address translation at, blizzard's server.

My speculation: this almost exclusively to protect the private IP of one client being exposed to another client. There is no server processing happening beyond connection verification to help mitigate desync attacks. Deliberate desyncs are still possible though, since I've been the victim of it.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#152

Post by ahtihn »

squaresmile wrote: post #119
colinmhayes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> increasing the ping doesn't make it more fair for the other teams because they actually traveled to the event Can't agree. Those teams had an advantage when playing RNG. Taking away that advantage does actually make the event more fair for them, even though they are being disadvantaged.

RNG already have an advantage when they are allowed to play remotely from the comfort of their home. Yes it's not the team's fault they can't travel but it is what it is. There's another tournament in 6 months. There's a reason this Frankenstein ping is unheard of in bigger esports.

> bigger esports

I don't think there's anything bigger than League, at least in terms of viewership

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#153

Post by Matheus28 »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #142
SeriouslyChad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every game in existence where you can shoot at someone by simply clicking where they are either uses lag compensation or clientside hitreg, it's simply impossible to get around this also players only teleport around on your screen in tf2 if you set your cl_interp very low

I’m not a game dev but I don’t really buy that being able to shoot other players requires compensation or client side hit reg. If you assume players have 35 ping (as Riot did) that is only 2 frames at 60fps which may make a small difference in edge cases, but I believe the game would still be very playable.

Spoiler alert: it wouldn’t be “very playable”. Not in a FPS. There’s a reason that basically every single FPS out there has it. You want headshots to happen when people click on people’s heads, not clicking ahead of them.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#154

Post by __turbobrew__ »

Matheus28 wrote: post #153
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a game dev but I don’t really buy that being able to shoot other players requires compensation or client side hit reg. If you assume players have 35 ping (as Riot did) that is only 2 frames at 60fps which may make a small difference in edge cases, but I believe the game would still be very playable.

Spoiler alert: it wouldn’t be “very playable”. Not in a FPS. There’s a reason that basically every single FPS out there has it. You want headshots to happen when people click on people’s heads, not clicking ahead of them.

I stated a detailed reason why I think playing a game with 35 ping without rollback would be “playable”. If you would like to explain technically why it would not be playable I am willing to listen and learn, but posting some low effort Reddit-esque reply does not bring any value to this conversation.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#155

Post by SeriouslyChad »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #142
SeriouslyChad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every game in existence where you can shoot at someone by simply clicking where they are either uses lag compensation or clientside hitreg, it's simply impossible to get around this also players only teleport around on your screen in tf2 if you set your cl_interp very low

I’m not a game dev but I don’t really buy that being able to shoot other players requires compensation or client side hit reg. If you assume players have 35 ping (as Riot did) that is only 2 frames at 60fps which may make a small difference in edge cases, but I believe the game would still be very playable.

no, it would not be playable, even with 35 ping

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#156

Post by amluto »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #120
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really dislike games which rewind state based upon latency. It penalizes people with good ping and can lead to very weird game states where a large rollback can cause teleportation of a laggy player as seen by non laggy players. Team Fortress 2 is particularly bad where high latency players can teleport around or you can shoot and hit a laggy player but it doesn’t register by the server due to a rollback. Some play…

While the exact logic TF2 uses leaves a lot to be improved, you absolutely need this kind of lag compensation. Without rewinding any amount of latency results in having to aim where an enemy gamer will be by the time your packet reaches the server instead of where they are on your screen. If you remember before they patched the Pyro class you had to aim significantly in front of players because the flames weren't lag…

I rather enjoyed playing Q2 on a modem and aiming the railgun where someone would be in 150ms. It took practice :)

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#157

Post by joshuak »

joebob42 wrote: post #99
joshuak wrote: post #68

Distributed consensus is hard. Very hard. Anyone dismissing the problem as “should never have hopped,” hasn’t a clue as to how hard and error prone reliable distributed consensus is. 35 ms lag in overall responsiveness is an eternity in competitive game play. There are videos floating around that show drawing on a tablet surface with various input latencies (perhaps someone has a link, I can’t find them at the moment…

There's no consensus involved in the bug.

Sure there is. The need to introducing a unified delay across all game clients in the first place, reliable measurement and comparison of latency data, and the effects of latency, artificial or otherwise, on game state which is not strongly consistent. There could be many other areas in which this bug intersects with distributed consensus in the actual implementation as well.

In fact neglecting the impact of distributed consensus is one of the biggest challenges to mitigating it.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#158

Post by joshuak »

namibj wrote: post #112
joshuak wrote: post #68

Distributed consensus is hard. Very hard. Anyone dismissing the problem as “should never have hopped,” hasn’t a clue as to how hard and error prone reliable distributed consensus is. 35 ms lag in overall responsiveness is an eternity in competitive game play. There are videos floating around that show drawing on a tablet surface with various input latencies (perhaps someone has a link, I can’t find them at the moment…

I think you meant https://youtu.be/vOvQCPLkPt4 . It was indeed not too easy to find, due to SEO tactics polluting YT search with gaming-oriented stuff from recent times (where one may actually reach the frame rates necessary for such low latencies in a frame-by-frame display technology).

Thanks! That is the one I was thinking of. Notice how even at 10ms of latency rubberbanding is easily visible.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#159

Post by bigcat12345678 »

gverrilla wrote: post #83
bigcat12345678 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, look at what Valve is doing to dota 2...

would you care to elaborate? I didn't play dota in a few years

I don't have a close observation either. I have read r/dota2 regularly, and the laziness of Valve just popped fairly often. Things like items promised got delayed and buyers actually forgot them, serious bug in TI (https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/9aexks/a_morphling_b...) etc.

Re: Riot Games: Artificial Latency for Remote Competitors

#160

Post by Lapsa »

f1refly wrote: post #147
Lapsa wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LoL is actually a slower game. in CSGO ping is even more important.

LoL is just as fast, but there's so many effects that average players can't react with appropriate counteractions anyways.

well I disagree. in many situations there's just so much you can do. time the flash, drop the combo and that's about it. bash 5-10 buttohs and you are mostly done for next 10-20 seconds. good reflexes do matter but not as much. what matters way more is game / map sense, presence of actual strategic / tactical plan, team synergy, experience
Post reply on HN