Ladle 79

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
woof
Round Winner
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:58 am

Re: Ladle 79

Post by woof »

dinobro wrote:Woof - I like how you completely ignore the issue at hand, which is you using a player that is on the roster for a totally different clan while you have enough members on the server to fil your ranks
That's not the issue at hand. It's Redemption's decision as to who we will play and who will spectate, not the communities. So your "really small" part in the community doesn't pertain to this issue.

dinobro wrote:Anyhow, I'm not an alias. It's my only account, and my name in game is "jsour".
Ah, didn't know, sorry for thinking you were.
Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Vogue »

hey woof one of your own members agreed with dinobro btw, maybe its time to listen
Kronkleberry wrote:
dinobro wrote:Yeah, kind of sad to look at your own members forced to watch the match from spec, simply because you want to play with a player who isnt even on your roster.
This.

I work every Sunday until 4PM EST, so I usually can't make it home until the very end of every ladle, but at least this gives me enough of a window to peek at what our finals line-up is. The last few times I've come home to see MR and Wap playing for my team, and at least 3-5 spectators wearing Rd tags. We tell ourselves we're getting too big as a clan, and we pretend to entertain the idea of a second team, but really, the bench just gets bigger and warmer. It especially lame if we even broke the rules to acquire wap...

Maybe it would be more appropriate to post this in my own forum's private section, but I already tried that last ladle when this happened.
*looks at camera*
*looks at soul*
User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Magi »

I'd rather not play ladle on .4 hosted servers, those servers start getting bad when you have 15-20 people in server, imagine trying to play with 32-50 people watching.

+1 Light's was very stable for me
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye
Monkey
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:36 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Monkey »

Personally speaking, I think I lag about the same in Pickup as I do in Ladle and other fortress servers. FYI I have a good internet connection and I play on v0.2.8 Arma client.

There seems to be a lot of people assuming that the Pickup servers are bad because they are running v0.4. However, I suggest that the quality of the physical server/VPS and its connection to the internet make far more difference.

Also, as far as spectators causing lag goes, I'm wondering whether chatting causes some lag, even though I think it would be small. If this is the case then maybe we could alter the spam settings to reduce chat for spectators?

I'd still like some input from someone in the know about all of this, especially some devs...(no offence Titan).
Overrated wrote:I've played in servers run from the same host and seen different quality between pickup and non-pickup.
Which ones?
Overrated wrote:I would believe that this ready system is a big causation of the lag
Anything is possible although I can't see how this would cause lag because it happens at the beginning of the game. Again, we need some devs to step in here and tell us some facts.
takburger wrote:We could have one player with a good connection to stream via twitch.tv and lower the number of specs.
This is a very good idea...wasn't Liz going to do this at some point?
Playing since December 2006
User avatar
orion
Match Winner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by orion »

would you make such a big hosting change just because there was an stupid confusion in a ladle game..... come on
Image
Overrated
Match Winner
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:32 am

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Overrated »

Monkey wrote:
Overrated wrote:I've played in servers run from the same host and seen different quality between pickup and non-pickup.
Which ones?
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Jip hosted a pickup server that was run from the same, or similar host awhile back as uNk's main fort server. uNk's never did perform very well for me to begin with, but the pickup server always appeared to be a little worse. Might be me not remembering correctly, but I recall something similar to that.
Monkey wrote:
Overrated wrote:I would believe that this ready system is a big causation of the lag
Anything is possible although I can't see how this would cause lag because it happens at the beginning of the game. Again, we need some devs to step in here and tell us some facts.
I like to say, it sets the tone. Eventually it might settle down, but in the end isn't it some sort of script? It should still be running in the background even after the game started. That's my reasoning, and I don't know anything about the coding of the game so I imagine I could be way off in this assumption.
Monkey wrote:
takburger wrote:We could have one player with a good connection to stream via twitch.tv and lower the number of specs.
This is a very good idea...wasn't Liz going to do this at some point?
Unfortunately, and sadly, Elmo was starting to get things situated for streaming consistently. I think I remember sine and myself helping out on occasion with commentary so he didn't have it all to himself... It definitely wasn't as easy as it sounds from a few of the minor issues we had.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.
User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 79

Post by sinewav »

We should only use the most stable version of arma dedicated for Ladles. If there is any scripting involved we should throw that idea right out the door now. Another problem is getting all the servers up-to-date with the proper versions. Nearly impossible. And, I still think the arguments against time-outs/warm-ups are far greater than the one for.
Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Vogue »

Sine and me did ladle streaming at some point and it was quite succesfull for the 2-3 times we did it. You need a really good connection to have somewhat decent quality, I had 60mb/s and 10 upload back then... now I don't even have a fraction of that, so I literally can't do it anymore.

I can help someone else to get it started, that way we can scrap spectators completely and cut off any extra lag? I tried to get someone to take over for me but nobody's willing to put the time in..
User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by takburger »

Some years ago I was playing to a game named "warsow" which is open source as well.

Anyway, to fix that tournament spectating issue they created something called "warsow tv" which was some kind of spectator you added to a server and who would stream it on warsow tv. So the people who wanted just to spec could just join the server's tv (which was in the server browser just below the server like in that example:

Ladle 80 (CT LIV)
Ladle 80 (CT LIV) TV
)

Would it require a lot of dev to make such thing ? I'm sure we could find some server host around the community who does not have a Ladle server but who would be able to make a TV server. Also, such a program would stream game info instead of images, which would be lighter (and players could watch with a modified aarec player or something like that).

I know it must be a lot of dev... But thats one way to do it with less impact on the internet connection.

Or we can go with twitch like tools which are good but require a big bandwidth.

On both solutions, I'm not able to provide help though, not yet.
Image
Lowkey
Core Dumper
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Lowkey »

I am about to get a better computer if someone is willing to sit with me and help me learn how to stream. Shouldn't be too hard i have a basic understanding of things. I should be able to stream for ladle days atleast.

However I only have a 2-3mb connection though I'm not sure how successful that would be and it would be all on home connection. SOOOO i am not sure, but im willing to help in anyway.
Image
Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Vogue »

Lowkey wrote:However I only have a 2-3mb connection
Forget streaming then. It has very little to do with your computer specs, and everything with your internet connection. If you don't have at least 10mb dl and upload you won't be able to stream.
User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by vov »

orion wrote:would you make such a big hosting change just because there was an stupid confusion in a ladle game..... come on
takburger wrote:I think pickupstyle warmup on every match is the key to be able to avoid such problems as well as:
enable a small timeout for strategic feedback / pee / other stuff.
It just seems to be a good idea. Alternatively a rule-forced break would work for non v0.4 servers. The warmup system just makes that step completely foolproof which some rather need.
Also I play on v0.4 servers with my v0.4 client and any lags i have i know are from my connection. Disappearing walls are rare on both server versions anyways.
Monkey
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:36 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Monkey »

sinewav wrote:We should only use the most stable version of arma dedicated for Ladles
Agreed, however many people make the mistake of always thinking that the older the version of a program, the more stable it is. This is not necessarily the case. For example, a program could have improvements made to its networking code, actually making it more stable than it's predecessor. This is especially true if proactive debugging is performed on the new code, as well as proper testing. Admittedly, too many programmers don't do proactive debugging or proper testing of their code and just rely on users to come across bugs. Unfortunately, in this case, age and stability do tend to be related to one another, at least to a certain degree.

What about Arma? Some web searching makes me believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the main networking code has not even changed from v0.2.8 (or v0.2.9) to v0.4 therefore there should really be no difference in server stability between v0.2.8 (or v0.2.9) and v0.4. I can't for the life of me think what new code could possibly cause any extra lag or instability in v0.4. Again, if there is someone that knows better then please speak up now.
Playing since December 2006
User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11585
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Z-Man »

There have been massive changes to the netcode in 0.4. The native message format has been completely overhauled. 0.2.8 clients on 0.4 servers run on an emulation layer that, no doubt, causes extra CPU load, and that is on top of the already higher CPU load of the new code (development focus was on conserving bandwidth and improving on extensibility).
The difference here is not between old and new. It's between "old with all the bugfixes that apply" and "new with all the bugfixes for the old code, but maybe some of them incorrectly merged or causing side effects with the new code, and maybe not all of the bugfixes for the things that were changed or added".
User avatar
Light
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: Ladle 79

Post by Light »

Z-Man wrote:causes extra CPU load, and that is on top of the already higher CPU load of the new code (development focus was on conserving bandwidth and improving on extensibility).
At least in my opinion, I'd rather it get better usage of server resources than bandwidth. It don't use much bandwidth, and when I see problems with lag and whatnot, it's usually from the CPU going up. In DF and whatnot where turning is a bit faster, it's easy to see it. I think we could get more stable servers with less server resources used over more used to save bandwidth.
Post Reply