[e2e] 150ms - tolerable latency for quakeIII

grenville armitage gja at ureach.com
Thu May 24 13:16:00 PDT 2001

Manuel Oliveira wrote:
> Hi,
> Your results are interesting but I wonder if you mind a few comments of my
> own. My pardons to members of the list that know this already.

No worries. Interesting input.

> Why am I pointing this out? Because, packet generation is not once per
> frame, but every once in a while. Also notice that the server does
> significant amounts of filtering and smoothing. What matters is people enjoy
> the experience, not that it is 100% accurate.


> Now another thing that needs to be considered in the equation is the user.
> The human being can adapt very well within certain limits. It is true that
> ideally the latency should be below 150ms. However, many users manage to
> play at higher levels because of their skill. In fact, they enjoy the
> challenge.

True. My supposition, though, is that most players will (if given
the choice) prefer servers with lower ping times. Certainly,
players in parts of the Internet that have a low density of local
servers will learn to tolerate (err... enjoy the challenge of :)
the latency to popular (but topologically more distant) servers.

> I assume you do not correlate the network data with the skill of the users.

No. Haven't had the time yet to correlate end-of-game ping times
with end-of-game frag counts.

> Do you check what percentage of players drop out of the game after a few
> minutes because their ping times are superior than the other users? How does
> the latency vary along the duration of the game?

At this stage, unknown.

Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list