The problem with ignoring "unintentional" laggers.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Deeek

UDP is frowned upon because Graal's protocol for it sucks, and players like me who are stuck behind a router have a hard enough time already trying not to fart without the server throwing us around all over the place (I can't open a port to keep packets bouncing off my router).

How is it frowned upon when the majority of UN (according to one statistic) is using it? Slowly more and more people are realizing that forwarding a port isn't exactly difficult and there are only a few who actually have problems with it. When two players are sparring with UDP on it's silky smooth.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Would be neat if there were specific areas of spar limited by latency. 40ms and below zone one, 41-100ms for zone two, and 101ms+ are zone three.

On clientside HD that isn't really relevant. This is why I'm kind of "eh" about latency. Americans and Europeans can comfortably spar assuming neither have bad connections and both are using UDP(TCP, of course, can make anyone harder to hit and skippy). If two people have 100ms, this doesn't necessarily mean they're both laggy. Hell they're probably both from Europe and thus, because it's clientside HD, extremely smooth with no discernible delay.

[coreys]

You should -not- have to forward a port for UDP. If you do, your router sucks for not automatically doing that, seeing as UDP is one of the major internet protocols.

UDP should be forced - just about every other online game out there uses UDP exclusively, it's the standard for any kind of online play. No other online game I know of lets you choose, that's why they don't have issues like this (because obviously you should never mix protocols like this, or problems arise).

[tempandrew]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Would be neat if there were specific areas of spar limited by latency. 40ms and below zone one, 41-100ms for zone two, and 101ms+ are zone three.

Sounds like segregation.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Would be neat if there were specific areas of spar limited by latency. 40ms and below zone one, 41-100ms for zone two, and 101ms+ are zone three.

Impractical if its forced and I believe if it was implemented it would suffer the same fate as the current rate-dependent spar rooms on UN. i.e. Rarely used, if ever.

[Rufus]

We have one main spar on Unholy Nation and it has a queue. "Just don't spar laggers!" is not an option, and the majority should not have to just stop sparring because of one or two people. What we currently have is also why ping-specific spars would not work; it is unsociable to place everyone in different rooms, people wouldn't enjoy that. In addition to a spar queue, we also have spar tournament events which participants have no control over. You can't just choose who you want to spar, and that's the way it should be, but players should not have to sit out of these because of one or two people who are abusing lag.

Sparring isn't the only competitive aspect of the server. We have events and Castle Wars, which again you don't have the option to pick your opponents in. Each competitive area has its own dynamic, but all three are generally based upon PVP which changes a lot when you're playing against those with massive lag. Like I said in my opening post, if you are doing something that is unfair to everyone else, you shouldn't be allowed to participate until you are fair.

What is the incentive to attempt to fix the problems you are causing for other people if you're allowed to do what you're doing?

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Rufus

We have one main spar on Unholy Nation and it has a queue. "Just don't spar laggers!" is not an option, and the majority should not have to just stop sparring because of one or two people. What we currently have is also why ping-specific spars would not work; it is unsociable to place everyone in different rooms, people wouldn't enjoy that. In addition to a spar queue, we also have spar tournament events which participants have no control over. You can't just choose who you want to spar, and that's the way it should be, but players should not have to sit out of these because of one or two people who are abusing lag.

Sparring isn't the only competitive aspect of the server. We have events and Castle Wars, which again you don't have the option to pick your opponents in. Each competitive area has its own dynamic, but all three are generally based upon PVP which changes a lot when you're playing against those with massive lag. Like I said in my opening post, if you are doing something that is unfair to everyone else, you shouldn't be allowed to participate until you are fair.

What is the incentive to attempt to fix the problems you are causing for other people if you're allowed to do what you're doing?

at the same time, you cannot tell legitimate laggers that they cannot play unless we're all willing to get rid of any laggers what-so-ever

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Hiro

at the same time, you cannot tell legitimate laggers that they cannot play unless we're all willing to get rid of any laggers what-so-ever

If 1 player has an unfair advantage over 10-20 players, yeah you can.

[WaDaFack]

Originally Posted by Rufus

If 1 player has an unfair advantage over 10-20 players, yeah you can.

You lag yourself anyways, k?
Besides, half the players on the server intentionally lag themselves to get that unfair edge. So, if you where to add a lag cap to events + sparring, than I suppose half the server won't be playing events, nor sparring.
Also, there's the players who warp all over the place or have MASSIVE delay and yet still remain under 100-150 MS.
^_^

[Luda]

Originally Posted by WaDaFack

half the players on the server intentionally lag themselves to get that unfair edge. So, if you where to add a lag cap to events + sparring, than I suppose half the server won't be playing events, nor sparring.

Or they'll fix it.

[Chakrah]

The question still is, what if they cant.

[Door]

Then they are forced to stop being wretched spoiled brats, and perhaps they also finally accept that sometimes they must sacrifice their own ill-begotten fortune for the sake of 97% of the population.

[cbk1994]

stfu chakrah, you're not helping your cause

Originally Posted by Door

Then they are forced to stop being wretched spoiled brats, and perhaps they also finally accept that sometimes they must sacrifice their own ill-begotten fortune for the sake of 97% of the population.

They paid for the game just as much as that 97% did.

[Door]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

They paid for the game just as much as you did.

3% paid as much as 97%?! I think you need to invest in a new calculator, dude. But really, that's not even the point.

Individual rights only extend as far as the next individual. This pertains to the Internet and in real life. You are generally allowed to do what you want so long as it does not negatively affect someone else. Once a single player begins interfering with other players' experiences, that person must be handled. It's as simple as that. Whether this person can 'help' their abuse of the system should not even come into question--it's 100% irrelevant.

A player is negatively affecting many other players. That is all you need to know.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

They paid for the game just as much as that 97% did.

lern2math

If you buy an online game knowing that you have a ****ty connection, then that's just a bad investment on your part. Lagging on most online games usually makes it unbearable for you to play, not everyone else. Why should UN make the majority of its players suffer for the stupidity of a few?

Sure, laggers bought the game and have a right to play, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be certain requirements for events and tournaments (i.e. low ping).

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Door

3% paid as much as 97%?! I think you need to invest in a new calculator, dude. But really, that's not even the point.

Not in volume. They paid the same as any of those 97% individually for the game. I think you know what I meant.

A player is negatively affecting many other players. That is all you need to know.

The solution is not to deny service to the paying customer.

Originally Posted by salesman

If you buy an online game knowing that you have a ****ty connection, then that's just a bad investment on your part. Lagging on most online games usually makes it unbearable for you to play, not everyone else. Why should UN make the majority of its players suffer for the stupidity of a few?

Good question. Why do they? I've suggested solutions such as serverside hit detection, which would make it completely fair based on connection speed, but they've been shot down by people who said, gasp, that this would be unfair to laggers.