Will delay be reduced?

[Qiin]

Hoping for a blue post here but anyone else is more than welcome to participate in this discussion / add your own opinion.

As Battle.net 2 stands the delay experienced in games is too high! Makes microing very difficult and most importantly NOT FUN. Nothing worse than clicking your guys to run away when it takes 2+ seconds for them to respond - by then half of them are dead!

The lack of LAN capabilities makes this even worse, not being able to play competitive matches with friends / lan cafes with no delay is a big downer. This wouldn't be a problem if battle.net had less delay.

[Zedix]

Hmm I think you might be the exception. I've never noticed any delay with this new Battle.net. Runs as smooth as if I was on LAN. Maybe you have a bad connection to the bnet servers?

[Mindless]

I noticed that a unit takes a sec or so to respond. I can get 3 clicks in before he starts to move.

I do not think this has to do with lag. I think its more to do with the game maybe.

I went on SC1 to see the difference and yah they instantly move when u tell them to go some where.

[Thander]

Warcraft 3 is the same way. SC1 seems faster because they are doing things different. The way SC1 (and WoW for that matter) work with movement is the game client predicts the outcome of the order. So you see immediate movement. Some time later the client gets a response from the server of what really happened and the client updates. With WC3 and SC2 when you give an order, the game client waits for the server response before moving the unit. It doesn't predict where the unit should be, it just waits for the server. So each order you give will take the full round trip time for response. Also I think there is a built in lag with everything to help synchronize all the players in the game. I estimate something like 1 second for synchronize plus latency*2. So if your latency is 200 ms, you are looking at 1.4 second delay for every order. I think the lag can get used to. The only problem I think is you go to some LAN where latency is pretty much nil and will have a hard time with the instant orders.

[ghost]

doesnt bother me one bit. Never had the problems OP describes :/

[Metallic]

The way SC1 (and WoW for that matter) work with movement is the game client predicts the outcome of the order. So you see immediate movement

This is completely false (except for WoW). If it were true you'd see units moving backwards, teleporting, and un-dying whenever there was a lag spike (which doesn't happen). SC1, and WC3, work on the same peer2peer model (for the most part). The biggest difference is that Starcraft has a variable latency (that's what those latency options do). Higher latency means a bigger delay but less chance of the game pausing while it waits for everyone to catch up. Lower latency means less delay but a higher chance of the game pausing if someone falls behind.


Also, as far as I can tell, SC2 has games hosted on Blizzard's own servers. This would explain why I got disconnected when Bnet went down for maintenance (whereas with WC3, disconnecting from Bnet would merely disable whispering, etc yet leave you in the game).

[Eloderung]

I agree. The innate built-in latency is RIDICULOUS and needs to be fixed if this game ever wants to seriously become an e-sport.

You can use third part programs on Warcraft III in battle.net custom games to reduce this latency from .3-.4s down to <.1s. Yes, LAN-like unit response times as fast as Counterstrike, in a blizzard RTS, on battle.net.

It also really annoys me that one person lagging still lags everybody.

This is 2010, not 1998. This is Starcraft II, not SCI. Please, please get some of the network engineers from Diablo II or WoW to come over and fix up your game. WoW has better response times with several hundred players in one area all fighting or doing something. SCII is not an MMO and requires significantly less network power to work well.

HoN is an RTS and its system is far better. If you lag, you don't slow anyone else down. The action on your screen will catch up after you lag spike is finished. If you disconnect, you can reconnect to the game even if you've left the client. SCII is a decade behind on server architecture and it really annoys me. How does blizzard expect us to make a first or third person shooter game, as shown at blizzcon, when the innate built-in latency would prevent a map from ever being successful online?

HoN was developed by a couple of nobodies. Are they really going to end up with server-client architecture that far surpasses that of Blizzard and Battle.net 2.0?

[Lazz]

I agree. The innate built-in latency is RIDICULOUS and needs to be fixed if this game ever wants to seriously become an e-sport.

You can use third part programs on Warcraft III in battle.net custom games to reduce this latency from .3-.4s down to <.1s. Yes, LAN-like unit response times as fast as Counterstrike, in a blizzard RTS, on battle.net.

It also really annoys me that one person lagging still lags everybody.

This is 2010, not 1998. This is Starcraft II, not SCI. Please, please get some of the network engineers from Diablo II or WoW to come over and fix up your game. WoW has better response times with several hundred players in one area all fighting or doing something. SCII is not an MMO and requires significantly less network power to work well.

HoN is an RTS and its system is far better. If you lag, you don't slow anyone else down. The action on your screen will catch up after you lag spike is finished. If you disconnect, you can reconnect to the game even if you've left the client. SCII is a decade behind on server architecture and it really annoys me. How does blizzard expect us to make a first or third person shooter game, as shown at blizzcon, when the innate built-in latency would prevent a map from ever being successful online?

HoN was developed by a couple of nobodies. Are they really going to end up with server-client architecture that far surpasses that of Blizzard and Battle.net 2.0?

While I disagree that the in-game lag is ridiculous, since I have literally none at all - SC1 speeds - I do agree with your point about Heroes of Newerth having very impression network capabilities. It'd be great is the SC2 development team could possibly work on that and try and get a few of those features in before release.

[Chalon]

Yeah, I don't know. I've played close to 200 1v1 games and I'd say probably 95% of my games have had no latency issues, I've been running smoothly. I haven't played a single 2v2 game, though, so maybe I'm more likely to encounter lag problems there. It seems like some people are having a lot more latency issues than others.

The problem with the HoN system for lag is it simply can't work for any type of ranked play. Custom maps or unranked, yeah it could work, but for ranked play they really need to stick with the current lock step mechanism.

As for reconnecting if you get dropped -- actually you can, but you have to reconnect within the 1 minute grace period. Maybe for custom games you could set what the grace period is? But everyone else does have to sit around and wait.

[Eloderung]

SCI speeds are pretty bad though. I don't think I've met a single person who can agree that HoN and SC2 have the exact same unit response times.

The unit response times are about the same or a bit better than SCI, but that was back when half the users (myself included) were playing off dial-up in 1998. Relative to SCI/War3, there's not much to complain about because the problems that were present then were exactly the same as now.

At the very least, there needs to be a "Low latency" option for SC2 custom games, where this innate built-in latency is removed. I don't want to rely on a third party program again to significantly improve my battle.net experience.

Yeah, I don't know. I've played close to 200 1v1 games and I'd say probably 95% of my games have had no latency issues, I've been running smoothly. I haven't played a single 2v2 game, though, so maybe I'm more likely to encounter lag problems there. It seems like some people are having a lot more latency issues than others.

The problem is the same no matter whether you're playing 2v2 with 100 units battling each other, or if you're doing 1v1 and have three zealots v. four zerglings.

The problem with the HoN system for lag is it simply can't work for any type of ranked play. Custom maps or unranked, yeah it could work, but for ranked play they really need to stick with the current lock step mechanism.

Why do you think that?

In WoW, I play competitive arenas, in the top .5% of the arena population ranking. If I lag, I may or may not lose depending on the severity of the lag spike and when it occurs. I don't lag anybody else in the game when I lag. 99% of the time my connection is fine, however, and I've only lost a handful of games in my thousands of career arena games to lag. If my connection is bad, I simply don't play arena.

I've played HoN. I've only played a few dozen games, but it is not surprising to me that I've never lost a game due to a lag spike, nor do I even see lag spikes that often. In the unfortunate event that I have a lag spike, the intense action of the game is not interrupted.

In SC2, there's no reason that it can't work exactly the same. If your connection is bad that day, don't play. If you're using 56k, you should obtain the minimum system requirements posted by blizzard. If you get a lag spike, you won't affect anyone else in the game (really, how often do you get lag spikes when your connection is having a good day?). If you DO get a lag spike, chances are it's not in the two seconds that will decide the match.

Also, in SC2, I cannot play if my connection is bad because I'll get dropped anyways. In fact, in WoW I can still play if my connection is poor, because my lag won't affect anyone else around me (I decide whether it's worth it personally or not). What if I want to go play an unranked custom game if my connection was bad in SC2? It wouldn't happen, because every time I lag, everyone else lags. And then everyone else will get mad at me, and I'll have to drop regardless. I don't want my lag to affect everybody else.

As for reconnecting if you get dropped -- actually you can, but you have to reconnect within the 1 minute grace period. Maybe for custom games you could set what the grace period is? But everyone else does have to sit around and wait.

Ah, I'm glad that feature is in now.

However, if you disconnecting or lagging did not affect anyone else, they would no longer need to put in that one minute grace period. And thus you could reconnect after a minute, and continue the game.

In HoN, you get five minutes to reconnect to a game after disconnecting. During that time, allies can control your units. It's far better to get your ally back after he is disconnected after 3 minutes, than it is to never get your ally back after the game pauses for a minute. I don't see why this system isn't in place or, at the very least, a toggleable option for custom games.

[Chalon]

At the very least, there needs to be a "Low latency" option for SC2 custom games, where this innate built-in latency is removed. I don't want to rely on a third party program again to significantly improve my battle.net experience.

I think there was a latency option in the original SC, and I believe WC3, also. It might still be there for custom games? I'll check later.

Also, it's not really fair to compare HoN to a full RTS, because in HoN you are only controlling one unit. I've barely played it, but I think they're most likely using some sort of client prediction for most of the actions (as they do in WoW). Since it's just that one unit, so you get smooth movement as long as you maintain a solid connection, and the server only overrides you if you're clearly doing something you shouldn't be able to. However, doing client prediction for hundreds of units on a battlefield just isn't viable. The amount of data you have to synchronize is far more than you do in HoN.

[Ignorance]

The way delay works, in Warcraft 3 at least, is that everyone is given a very small delay to compensate for players who have a real delay. I believe this delay is virtual and only affects players whose real delay is below it.

[Metallic]

The way delay works, in Warcraft 3 at least, is that everyone is given a very small delay to compensate for players who have a real delay. I believe this delay is virtual and only affects players whose real delay is below it.

This is true. There is a built-in 250ms latency. This is why latency reduction programs work.

[Eloderung]

I think there was a latency option in the original SC, and I believe WC3, also. It might still be there for custom games? I'll check later

Also, it's not really fair to compare HoN to a full RTS, because in HoN you are only controlling one unit. I've barely played it, but I think they're most likely using some sort of client prediction for most of the actions, since it's just that one unit, so you get smooth movement as long as you maintain a solid connection. However, doing client prediction for hundreds of units on a battlefield just isn't viable. The amount of data you have to synchronize is far more than you do in HoN.

It is one unit. However, it's one unit for 10 players, and generally the APM of HoN matches can become very high (several hundred per player).

There are also dozens of units on the screen at once, for npcs and for players. NPCs do not travel in a straight line and attack the closest person. They will change who they attack. NPCs will charge and follow enemy players who get too close, and will break off from other npcs and have a mind of their own.

Player-controlled unit or not, those commands (sometimes changing several times a second) must be sent to each of the 10 players. Along with the 200-300+ APM of every player.

There are also many heroes which mind control or summon other units, like that one hero who mind controls creeps and controls a small army (which must be micro'd as well as SC1 units in high-end play).

I'm not a network engineer, but many spells in HoN also strike me as far more complex than what you'd find in SC2. There are effects that very quickly and dynamically affect movement speed, like the rubber-band-like-snare Voodoo Master can cast. There are many melee-only abilities that require you to be right next to another player (won't work with any server desync). I'm sure if I looked at how much traffic was being generated by SC2 and HoN, I'd see greater amounts in HoN games than even 2v2 in SC2.

I have never once ran into a desync issue with HoN. Maybe I'm lucky, but their server-client architecture is really amazing. It's as responsive as Warcraft III custom games on battle.net are if you use a certain third party program to remove the innate latency while hosting. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that an intense HoN game includes unit responses that are <.1s when SC2 cannot even manage .3-.4s in early game 1v1 situations where barely anything is going on.

Bottom line: people have ALREADY MADE War3 function just as well as HoN on battle.net, so there is no reason why SC2 can't do the same with a toggleable option.

[Chalon]

Well, a couple of things. First, yes there's 10 players in total in HoN, but again there is only one player that is client authoritative (your character, and potentially any creeps you're mind controlling).

Basically, there may be a high 200 APMs that an opponent might be performing to move their character around and such, but most of that information is not sent to you in such high precision. You are only getting the important results of that player's action. Furthermore, I believe in HoN they only send you information of characters that you can currently see. So you might only be have 4 heroes in your particular lane, and are only seeing information about them. Even then, though, there is a lot of client prediction going on at the very least to define the movements and autoattack. I'd imagine the only actions that are server authoritative are losses of HP and uses of special abilities. Everything else can be predicted client side.

NPCs are simple in HoN because while they are not moving in a straight line and do have an AI, the AI is consistent, assuming the random seed is shared with the clients (which it likely is). So, you pretty much can accurately predict what the AI is going to do at all times more or less, as long as you're synchronized on the random seed. So that's another thing that can be handled by client prediction because the AI is still ultimately a state machine that will always do what the states say to do.

An RTS like Starcraft is different. There is absolutely no client prediction at all, and that's by design. Everything on Battle.net (or back in the LAN days) is using an authoritative server, so all actions are sent to the server for authorization. You can't do accurate client prediction for a large number of units being controlled by another player. While the APMs may be the same in HoN, the scenarios in which you have to do client prediction are largely different. There are so many individual units that are moved around that the client prediction would be inaccurate so often that you would just introduce a lot of rubberbanding.

As far as I'm aware, no full-blown RTS has ever utilized a model that heavily relies on client prediction. The lock step mechanism is pretty much always there.

Now, as for the point about it having latency when the game starts and you just have the probes, it's not an issue of network traffic. Basically, as another poster said up there, there is a ~300ms delay (it might be lower now) that is automatically added to each action, regardless of how much traffic is currently being sent. The reason the 3rd party app worked in WC3 is simply because it reduced that 300ms delay time to 100ms or 50ms.

The reasoning behind the 300ms delay is that most users should have a connection faster than this, so from game to game you will have a consistent 300ms delay. If you have a really bad connection (as the OP likely does), then you will see a latency much higher than 300ms and the game will slow down. The idea behind the 300ms delay is that if someone has a 200ms ping and someone else has a 50ms ping, ultimately they will both have the exact same play experience and the guy with the 50ms ping won't have an advantage.

Maybe it makes sense to reduce that mandatory delay to say, 200ms, since ping times for most broadband connections are lower than that nowadays. And maybe it should be an option in custom games to be able to reduce that latency.

[Eloderung]

An RTS like Starcraft is different. There is absolutely no client prediction at all, and that's by design. Everything on Battle.net (or back in the LAN days) is using an authoritative server, so all actions are sent to the server for authorization. You can't do accurate client prediction for a large number of units being controlled by another player. While the APMs may be the same in HoN, the scenarios in which you have to do client prediction are largely different. There are so many individual units that are moved around that the client prediction would be inaccurate so often that you would just introduce a lot of rubberbanding.

As far as I'm aware, no full-blown RTS has ever utilized a model that heavily relies on client prediction. The lock step mechanism is pretty much always there.

Now, as for the point about it having latency when the game starts and you just have the probes, it's not an issue of network traffic. Basically, as another poster said up there, there is a ~300ms delay (it might be lower now) that is automatically added to each action, regardless of how much traffic is currently being sent. The reason the 3rd party app worked in WC3 is simply because it reduced that 300ms delay time to 100ms or 50ms.

Again, there's already a third party program that makes Warcraft III games you host on battle.net have <.1s unit response times for everybody in the game if their connections are solid.

This is why the innate latency can be reduced, because it already has been done on battle.net by third party programmers and is used by a large number of people on battle.net today.

The proof is in the pudding. If it can be done for WarIII, it can certainly be done for SC2 - even if it's only a .1-.2s reduction on the delay, it would be substantial for micro, e-sports, and future custom game first/third person shooter maps in the years to come.

http://forums.dota-allstars.com/lofiversion/index.php

Go search for "Warcraft III Delay Reducer" or "WC3DR" and you'll find plenty of positive feedback from DotA players who play War3 custom games with significantly less ping.

It changes the timeframe value that Warcraft III uses. When playing on Battle.net the standard value is 250 ms, when playing on LAN it is 100 ms.

What is this timeframe thing? All packets (orders etc) that are sent to the host is put in the next upcoming timeframe. Each 250/100/whatever ms the whole timeframe is dispatched to all clients, and all next incoming packets is put into a new timeframe. This lowers the bandwidth usage due to fewer packets sent (less packet/TCP overhead (if the game information is sent with TCP, I'm not sure about that)), but increases the overall delay because you have to wait a maximum of one timeframe because the packets are sent to you.

Shortening the timeframe will decrease the overall delay with the same amount, but it will also increase the spike sensitivity because it won't be so much marginal.

I've heard somewhere that Warcraft III uses another buffer (to reduce spikes) that increases the delay with about one more timeframe. If that is true, then the standard delay (not including the ping between client-host) will be 1.5*timeframe (375ms for Battle.net and 150ms for LAN). Not sure though.

The optimal value? It's all about how stable the connections are. An unstable connection needs a higher timeframe to not spike then a more stable connection. A perfect connection would be able to use a 1ms timeframe.

[Krazytrumpet]

Yeah, because I want DotA players shaping my SC2 experience.

[Qiin]

OK, the 250ms added to all actions would explain my lag. I live in Australia so i'm guessing how it works is

my latency to the server is added to that 250 MS giving me something like 500-600ms response times.

Regarding my internet connection; i use cable 30mbit connection which is very fast (well for Australia),

experience absolute NO delay in HoN and around 160 ms in World of Warcraft with Lowerping (3rd party

tunneling software) enabled.


I've been frequently trying to find Aussie SC2 beta testers to see if the delay is effecting them as much as it

is me and they too are all experiencing it.


As it is, i dont think it will be possible for Aussies to play SC2 in the competitive/world scene with delay

like this, hopefully ICUP hosts some SC2 servers :p

[Eloderung]

Yeah, because I want DotA players shaping my SC2 experience.

Laggy = better?

Why don't we increase the latency to 1000ms. One second delays on each and every single action. More lag is better, right?

Just because you're playing the most anticipated sequel of the decade doesn't mean you can praise every single aspect of the game as perfect. The delay (at the very least for custom games) is a legitimate concern for many people, and it should be addressed.

300-400ms was considered unacceptable for games released a decade ago, I'm not sure why people are supporting it for SC2.

[Qiin]

Laggy = better?

Why don't we increase the latency to 1000ms. One second delays on each and every single action. More lag is better, right?

thats what it feels like for me :(

[Krazytrumpet]

Laggy = better?

Why don't we increase the latency to 1000ms. One second delays on each and every single action. More lag is better, right?

Just because you're playing the most anticipated sequel of the decade doesn't mean you can praise every single aspect of the game as perfect. The delay (at the very least for custom games) is a legitimate concern for many people, and it should be addressed.

300-400ms was considered unacceptable for games released a decade ago, I'm not sure why people are supporting it for SC2.

Well, I have yet to see this supposed delay so...

[Eloderung]

Well, I have yet to see this supposed delay so...

Have you played HoN, Counterstrike, or even MMOs like WoW?

Or have you played War3 or SCI on LAN? Or a War3 custom game where the host is using War3DR? Or SCI/War3 single player?

You'll notice the difference instantly. Play the two one after another. Go into a custom game you host, give a unit a command, and see how long it takes for the unit to respond. Then play single player, LAN, or War3DR with War3 over battle.net.

If you've only played SCI and War3 (sans DR) online, you won't notice a difference because those games have this same issue built-in.

[Acosnil]

I don't know what the OP is talking about as far as lag is concerned. As far as LAN cafe's.....wouldn't they have internet? Problem solved.

There's a base amount of delay though, so that there isn't some contest to see who can afford a T1 connection quicker though. But that delay is so small that you'd be grasping at straws to say that it costs you games- the other guy is subject to it too so what's the problem?

[Eloderung]

I don't know what the OP is talking about as far as lag is concerned. As far as LAN cafe's.....wouldn't they have internet? Problem solved.

There's a base amount of delay though, so that there isn't some contest to see who can afford a T1 connection quicker though. But that delay is so small that you'd be grasping at straws to say that it costs you games- the other guy is subject to it too so what's the problem?

250ms does not require a strong T1 connection, or even a remotely close physical location to the server.

I get 80 ms cross-country (Ohio to Seattle, Washington) on WoW, a MMO. I pay $20 a month for cable. Even eastern Canada and British players I've known on WoW get under 250ms connecting to Seattle, Washington on the same server.

Games like Counterstrike and HoN are consistently 50-70 ms.

250ms was designed for dial-up connections, which do not meet the minimum system requirements for SC2. There's no reason to hamper the game for the majority of its users for people who do not even meet the minimum requirements.

[Krazytrumpet]

250ms does not require a strong T1 connection, or even a remotely close physical location to the server.

I get 80 ms cross-country (Ohio to Seattle, Washington) on WoW, a MMO. I pay $20 a month for cable. Even eastern Canada and British players I've known on WoW get under 250ms connecting to Seattle, Washington on the same server.

Games like Counterstrike and HoN are consistently 50-70 ms.

250ms was designed for dial-up connections, which do not meet the minimum system requirements for SC2. There's no reason to hamper the game for the majority of its users for people who do not even meet the minimum requirements.

Also read as "blah blah blah idk what I'm talking about"

[Baldey]

i already made a thread like this, and doing so begs for drama. many players dont even know what delay is. Personally i usually experience a less then 1 second delay, but that in my opinion is atrocious. Not for a beta ofcorse, but i hope it doesn't go release with such slow response times.

To everyone that says you dont notice a delay, in your next ladder game, do this. take a pylon; supply depot; hatchery; w/e. try killing it with some range units on one type. like 2 stalkers, hydras, marauders w/e . Now, try to kill another structure of the same type, with the same units, but moving in between shots. If you can kill the structure as fast as u would without moving the units without thinking twice, then u got no response time. But even the smallest response time is gona double the time it takes you to kill the pylon, if you even manage to get a single shot off before it would normally be dead.

there will prolly be no blue post on this issue. i just pray they know about it and are working on it. Cause without lan support, unit response better be flawless like it would be with lan support by release. Otherwise this game will be stillborn.

[Serpico]

Yeah, because I want DotA players shaping my SC2 experience.

that has nothing to do with anything. its about lag and HON did it right.

[Krazytrumpet]

It was in response to this comment:


Go search for "Warcraft III Delay Reducer" or "WC3DR" and you'll find plenty of positive feedback from DotA players who play War3 custom games with significantly less ping.

[Chalon]

I did a very unscientific test using some recording and frame counting, but it seems like the built in delay ends up ranging between 200 - 300ms. On average I was getting about 8 or 9 frames (at 30 FPS) from when the initial command to move is given to when it starts moving.

Now if the 1.5x thing is still in effect from the Warcraft 3 post you linked Elo, then the delay frame is ~166ms. So players with a ping lower than 166 would have superior experience with a smaller delay frame. And if you're noticing a delay longer than the 200-300ms I quoted, that means your ping is > 166ms.

[Queuequeue]

Actually, for me the game is really responsive. I feel like I am playing as close to LAN latency as I ever have in any online RTS.

[Eloderung]

i already made a thread like this, and doing so begs for drama. many players dont even know what delay is. Personally i usually experience a less then 1 second delay, but that in my opinion is atrocious. Not for a beta ofcorse, but i hope it doesn't go release with such slow response times.

To everyone that says you dont notice a delay, in your next ladder game, do this. take a pylon; supply depot; hatchery; w/e. try killing it with some range units on one type. like 2 stalkers, hydras, marauders w/e . Now, try to kill another structure of the same type, with the same units, but moving in between shots. If you can kill the structure as fast as u would without moving the units without thinking twice, then u got no response time. But even the smallest response time is gona double the time it takes you to kill the pylon, if you even manage to get a single shot off before it would normally be dead.

there will prolly be no blue post on this issue. i just pray they know about it and are working on it. Cause without lan support, unit response better be flawless like it would be with lan support by release. Otherwise this game will be stillborn.

Agreed entirely.

I wouldn't say stillborn, but definitely the potential of SC2 will take a big hit if this problem is not fixed. Competitive play will suffer, e-sport potential will suffer, and custom games will suffer. It'll still be a huge success because it's Starcraft and the delay is no worse than what you'd find in SCI + War3 (status quo is met), but the potential will take a big hit.

Custom games are a huge point too. That third person action shooter that blizzard showcased at Blizzcon, that they were so proud of? That arcande side-scroll shooter? Yea, have fun with any sort of custom game shooter with .3-.4s delays built-into everybody.

[Qiin]

any blue out there for any response regarding this?

i know ALOT of people (inclined to say most people) that are on battle.net v2 are not experiencing delay but what of us that do not live in the US / Canda?

Will there be a oceanic gateway or would we have better delay playing on European or Asian gateways?

[Sean]

Agreed entirely.

It'll still be a huge success because it's Starcraft and the delay is no worse than what you'd find in SCI + War3 (status quo is met), but the potential will take a big hit.


the delay is no worse than what you'd find in SCI

the delay is no worse

SC1


Wait so what are you complaining about? And why are you using WoW as your counter-argument? Do you even know how long .3 seconds is?

I played WoW too and it wouldn't be far fetched to say that it is common for WoW plays to complain about everything Blizzard does. This is not the same WotLK devs who ruined WoW. This is a beta to mainly test the imbalances in the game.

Quit seeking attention on something you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not hard to find one thing wrong in the first week of a beta and then act like you're an expert on the subject.

And Blizzard won't read the SC2 general Beta forums so I hope you enjoy wasting your time trying to prove your point.

[ghost]

You guys must have bad connections or something, i have zero delay on my actions.
i know this b/c i began playing the beta w/ timing that i got used to using coming from playing games on extra high latency where there was at least a 1 second delay.

where exactly are you playing from? what are your pc specs and who is your IP?

i'm honestly curios as i thought when i first played beta "wow its like im on LAN"

[Accordion]

Player accordion.aviators set network for extra high latency.


Come on guys, it reduces lag!

[Jokebook]

Bnet has been running exceptional for me. I haven't experienced any large "delays" after actions. I'm sure if there are games that you are noticing them in, it is BNET compensating for latency between the two players, or those players and Bnet.

I believe this is similar to the latency settings in the original SC.