From: hill@norman.VI.RI.CMU.EDU (Robert Hill)
Subject: Re: GB at LAR
Reply-To: hill@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:28:29 GMT

Ted Hadley writes
> 
>    Whoa, wait a minute.  If this is going to be the general attitude
>    towards teams with lagged home servers, we have a problem.  First
>    of all, we're going to have to redefine some terms.

I think it is the general attitude toward teams with lagged home  
servers..like it or not.

>    home server: the server that the away team finds the most agreeable.

Not really, the most agreeable place the away team would find agreeable  
would probably be their home server.  Most people really want to play a  
nice, playable game.  Sometimes this is impossible no matter what.   
Sometimes some things can be done to make the game enjoyable for both  
teams (ie  not play on a lagged home server if possible).

>    fair home field advantage: a measure of network response-time
>    experienced by the home team that is somewhat less then that
>    experienced by the away team, but not by too much.

Just general sportsmanship.  Nobody's asking anyone to give up their home  
field advantage...I think everyone is asking everyone to try to make the  
games have the least amount of lag possible.  This is unreasonable?  I'd  
love to see a CMU/UCB game without either team having lag...it just isn't  
possible, so to minimize their lag, we play out of the cs zone so they  
don't get the standard CMU SCS packet loss.  Of course, this isn't the  
only reason we play out of SCS, but what prompted the initial change, I  
think (ie  moriarty going down).  I'd like to see USC use some of the same  
idea if they can.  Against the bears was it really unreasonable to play  
from UCLA?  

>    unfair home field advantage: a measure of network response-time
>    experienced by the away team that is pretty much a lot more then
>    that experienced by the home team.

Again, I don't see this as being true.  There is no such thing as "fair"  
or "unfair" homefield advantage.  The issue is sportsmanship.

>    There's no question calvin's response time is very poor, but there 
> are other points to consider before accusing LAR of unfairness:

I didn't accuse LAR of unfairness.  It is within your rights to play  
wherever you want.  I said (as I recall) that you should've played the  
game on a UCLA server if possible to reduce the lag as much as possible.   
If this wasn't an option, then i'd say screw 'em.

>    1) Last INL season, all home games were played on calvin without
>       apparent network problems.  (Perhaps I should put it another
>       way: SC _lost_ most home games last INL season.)  The seeming
>       conclusion?  Lag - no big deal.

Yes...I remember not long ago the Team Akira versus USC match.  They  
whined the whole game long about the lag.  People don't complain about the  
lag if they win the game...its not nearly as important.  Lag can be a big  
deal (above 10 % packet loss (frequent calvin lag) *is* a big deal).  How  
can you think it is not?  You justify lag being no big deal because you  
lost?  Australia lost to CMU, but did you think lag was a non-factor?

>    2) Calvin regulars are quite inured to network complaints ("callused" 
> is a better word) both from hearing them all the time, and, as Ron has
> already mentioned, having to put up with it everytime they play outside 
> USC.

Sure...I think everyone gets tired of people complaining about lag.  When  
I play on calvin (rarely now adays) I usually scream once about lag, tell  
my team I have lag, then play the best that I can.  I assume that its  
understood.

Also, from the moriarty flame wars, is it the same for one netrek  
connection going out from USC as 16 going into USC?  Same story as on  
moriarty.

>    3) What other servers?  Maybe I could have set up something at UCI on
>       short notice, but I can't make the decision to relocate for my USC
>       teammates who might then have to put up with response times far 
>       beyond what could be called a home field advantange.

I'm not sure...this is a good point.  I think all anyone can ask of you is  
to be reasonable.  If you are reasonable, then who can ask for anything  
more than that?

>    4) Since when is a team morally required to  forfeit a home 
> advantage? Last season, games were described where the away team had to 
> tradeoff updates between players.   Games were described where 
> practically the whole team spent most of the game ghostbusted.  At no 
> time was it ever suggested that the home team was _at fault_ for not 
> giving up their home server!  (And yet, right after the GB-LAR game, Rob 
> Hill(apparently speaking as an unbiased observer) blamed LAR for just 
> that.)

A team is never required to give up their home field advantage.  I think  
that in every game teams should accomodate their opponents as much as  
possible.  Sometimes they are never satisfied, and sometimes they still  
cry foul...such is life.

The game you are referring to is darkhorse verus 300+ms.  Darkhorse played  
against the lag (1-4 updates a peice) and won.  I imagine the was no  
serious bitching because they won.  Had they lost, (like if Akira had lost  
at USC) there would've been a net-burst of bitching, I imagine...who knows  
for sure.

Again, as I recall, after GB lost at LAR, I congradulated USC on their  
underdog win.  I said that they were probably the most underrated team in  
the INL.  I picked them to win the west (or second) before the season  
started (ask gamera, we had a bet :).  I said in my message that if  
possible the game should've been played at UCLA.  I stand by that.  I've  
played on calvin enough to know that its really bad at times.  Just food  
for thought...live and learn...

>    In the last game, the larger USC part of LAR went to a great deal of
>    trouble to play at a server with more reasonable delay for GB.  
>    Accounts were set up at UCLA, arrangments made for transportation, 
>    etc..  The attitude of GB as expressed above?  "Gosh, guys, thanks.  
>    You didn't have to go to all that trouble just on our account."  
>    *NOT*.  How about "Well _that's_ what you shoulda done in the first 
>    game, cheaters."

Firstly, I never heard anyone call you cheaters.  I commended you for your  
efforts and sportsmanship.  I think any golden bear(i.e. mojo) that  
expressed the above opinion was dead wrong.  

> 
>    There are two ways we can handle network problems in INL games: just 
> play the game (and then, justification notwithstanding, 
> complain/gripe/moan about it on r.g.n for the next few months), or get 
> an official ruling from the INL council.  Both Rob and Tom seem to have 
> reached an informal conclusion of some sort -- at least with respect to 
> calvin and LAR -- but I think we'd like to see a more generally worded 
> rule if possible.
>    Tedd Hadley (hadley@uci.edu)

Well, I speak for myself here, and not the rest of of the council, but I  
feel that no lag clause is likely.  It would have to be a really good idea  
(easily to verify, not much of a hassle, both teams happy).  I just don't  
see it in the cards.

I have reached no conclusion with tom.  Please don't put me on his  
side...:-).  He never wins...:-).  I think calvin lag sucks...most  
everyone does.  I think LAR did the best they could do accomodate GB in  
the last game.  The first game may've had too been played on calvin (or  
you didn't want to go through the extra hassle), i wasn't there, I don't  
know.

See you on the net,

Rob
aka Spaceace!  

Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek