Why do some players have awful pcs?

[Riotcoke]

I've never understood why there's so many players, especially on RE, that seem to lag like shit especially on team. It just makes no sense to me that a game that's as easy to run as aoe3 still lags like crap on people's pcs, are people just running pcs from 2003 or something?

[007Salt]

Offer to buy them a pc then problem solved.

[helln00]

this is probably just as a result of where I am from but im sure that 60% of my lags are distance lag and the last 40% are high traffic lag. Like my internet goes to shit consistently everyday about the same time people finish their dinner.

[wardyb1]

I don't think it is PC lag most of the time unless you are reaching 20min 3v3 games where everyone is at 200pop. Biggest issue is just p2p. You can have 1 Asian player, 1 Euro and 1 NA and of course it is going to lag like shit because everyone will have minimum 200ping to each other. That is without including the additional 1-3 players. Also it is an old game and old games are often played because they are on old computers so naturally you are quite likely to play against someone with an old computer that starts to clunk out at max pop. Once again you are limited by the weakest link. The game can't run quicker for everyone else so naturally the odds aren't in your favour if it is a 3v3.

[evilcheadar]

they can't afford good pc cause they don't have their priorities straight

[fei123456]

It's location rather than PC that cause lag.

[P i k i l i c]

My laptop will die soon, but I lag only at the loading/ start of the game. So I don't think people's PCs are the real issue
EDIT: wrote desktop instead of laptop

[chris1089]

I have a mid to budget end laptop from 2012. I'm pretty sure I don't get computer lag although it's hard to tell. What's more interesting is that my broadband varies from a download speed of 2.5-7 (I think it's MiB) and an upload speed of 3.5-6(MiB)
I'm pretty sure it goes up when my family go to bed, and it seems I just lag at some points in the day because the WiFi becomes too slow. Other times I play basically lag free.

[Snuden]

Sometimes it takes longer for me to load the game than to actually play it, unless I deploy my newly developed Aztec rush.

Due to my slow game loading time, I have no time for pre-micro management. Not a big deal vs a PR15 though.

[XeeleeFlower]

they can't afford good pc cause they don't have their priorities straight

Considering you haven't bought a house yet, neither do you.

[kevinitalien]

lags can appear during big team fights, it is the performance of the pc of certain players that causes these lags

[lordraphael]

I have a mid to budget end laptop from 2012. I'm pretty sure I don't get computer lag although it's hard to tell. What's more interesting is that my broadband varies from a download speed of 2.5-7 (I think it's MiB) and an upload speed of 3.5-6(MiB)
I'm pretty sure it goes up when my family go to bed, and it seems I just lag at some points in the day because the WiFi becomes too slow. Other times I play basically lag free.

a mid to budget LAPTOP ? damn id say there might be quite the chance that you get pc lag. What most people forget about aoe 3 is how inefficent it uses the pc ressources. ( no multicore support etc )
Which means that while there ShOULDNT be any pc lag, there definetly CAN be some. For example i def have pc lag at maxed out fights, altho i shouldnt have it just from my specs, but my pc is around 7 to 8 years old and pcs dont age like wine...

[Snuden]

I have a mid to budget end laptop from 2012. I'm pretty sure I don't get computer lag although it's hard to tell. What's more interesting is that my broadband varies from a download speed of 2.5-7 (I think it's MiB) and an upload speed of 3.5-6(MiB)
I'm pretty sure it goes up when my family go to bed, and it seems I just lag at some points in the day because the WiFi becomes too slow. Other times I play basically lag free.

a mid to budget LAPTOP ? damn id say there might be quite the chance that you get pc lag. What most people forget about aoe 3 is how inefficent it uses the pc ressources. ( no multicore support etc )
Which means that while there ShOULDNT be any pc lag, there definetly CAN be some. For example i def have pc lag at maxed out fights, altho i shouldnt have it just from my specs, but my pc is around 7 to 8 years old and pcs dont age like wine...

... or women

[chris1089]

I have a mid to budget end laptop from 2012. I'm pretty sure I don't get computer lag although it's hard to tell. What's more interesting is that my broadband varies from a download speed of 2.5-7 (I think it's MiB) and an upload speed of 3.5-6(MiB)
I'm pretty sure it goes up when my family go to bed, and it seems I just lag at some points in the day because the WiFi becomes too slow. Other times I play basically lag free.

a mid to budget LAPTOP ? damn id say there might be quite the chance that you get pc lag. What most people forget about aoe 3 is how inefficent it uses the pc ressources. ( no multicore support etc )
Which means that while there ShOULDNT be any pc lag, there definetly CAN be some. For example i def have pc lag at maxed out fights, altho i shouldnt have it just from my specs, but my pc is around 7 to 8 years old and pcs dont age like wine...

There most probably is some. It definitely is inefficient usage of the CPU The fact I don't have any a lot of the time means I just attribute it to my opponents or WiFi.

[aligator92]

In my case, I only play a few games of AoE per week and no other games. So I don't own a pc, but just a random office laptop with a random graphics card. Couple that with the fact that AoE does not run in parallel. I guess I am not the only one who does not have a good pc because I simply do not need one.

[gamevideo113]

Any laptop without a decent dedicated gpu can lag while playing AoE3

[Dolan]

Because Microsoft scrimped on server costs and instead of having regional servers (like Riot does with LoL), they just set up one single location (USA) for their servers.
If you add the ancient networking programming they put into AOE3 and the ancient solution of running most of the game on the CPU (because that's how things were done back in 2001-2003) when AOE3's game engine was made, you get shitty frame rates, even on better hardware.

[Dolan]

The AOE3 engine was really state-of-the-art technology


...in 2003.

[aaryngend]

It's location rather than PC that cause lag.

100% this. If you would have been on LAN with every player you played on ESO with instead of online, you would drool at how well the game runs. It's 99% the distance and p2p tbh, especially nowadays where no one runs around with 2006 computers anymore.

Because Microsoft scrimped on server costs and instead of having regional servers (like Riot does with LoL), they just set up one single location (USA) for their servers.

That's unfair to say, 99% of games were p2p back then, no one set up servers (except MMOs).

[chris1089]

I need to redact half of what I said. I got some serious delay today with WiFi running well -task manager said CPU was at 90% in the lobby. I guess I need an upgrade.

[Dolan]

Because Microsoft scrimped on server costs and instead of having regional servers (like Riot does with LoL), they just set up one single location (USA) for their servers.

That's unfair to say, 99% of games were p2p back then, no one set up servers (except MMOs).

I meant for matchmaking.

I don't really know the whole history of game development, but from what I've read about how AOE3 was made like back in the early 2000s, they had some choices. I think other RTS makers like Blizzard had dedicated servers for their RTS games, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think SC2 was peer-to-peer.

Ensemble went with this peer-to-peer game design choice because it was cheaper for Microsoft to only run a single matchmaking server (ESO) for all the players in the world. Instead of having the game go through regional servers and have every game hosted on that regional server. So that if one player disconnects or lags, the game data (player moves etc) would continue to be synched between the players that are still in the game. And if one player lags, the lag won't be "synched" with the other players too.

Again, I'm not sure how things were done back in the early 2000s, though I think it's possible there were game studios that had their RTS games hosted on dedicated servers (which costs more).

[Guigs]

and pcs dont age like wine...

So does your gameplay loooooool

[aaryngend]

I don't really know the whole history of game development, but from what I've read about how AOE3 was made like back in the early 2000s, they had some choices. I think other RTS makers like Blizzard had dedicated servers for their RTS games, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think SC2 was peer-to-peer.

Nah, back then there were no choices, any game from RTS to Shooter was p2p.
SC2 came out in 2010, why would you compare that to a much older game like wc3 or aoe3??

Ensemble went with this peer-to-peer game design choice because it was cheaper for Microsoft to only run a single matchmaking server (ESO) for all the players in the world. Instead of having the game go through regional servers and have every game hosted on that regional server.

I think you don't understand what p2p is in this regard. It dosesn't matter jackshit where the servers operate from, you aren't connected to the official servers on ESO while you play your opponent anyway. It's just between you and your opponent. The official servers just serve as a hub. Regional ESO servers wouldn't change a damn, as long as games aren't hosted on them.

Again, I'm not sure how things were done back in the early 2000s, though I think it's possible there were game studios that had their RTS games hosted on dedicated servers (which costs more).

Haha nope dude, the technology and infrastructure just wasn't there yet. That would lag even more, given most people had 56k internet back then.
Every single game was p2p, it was cheap and good enough for pretty much everything. Especially with shooters, people hosted their own servers anyway, paid like 5-10 bucks a month and chose the location to be close to them. The server also functioned as a server then, and clients connected. People were not connected to each other, only to the server.

[Dolan]

I don't really know the whole history of game development, but from what I've read about how AOE3 was made like back in the early 2000s, they had some choices. I think other RTS makers like Blizzard had dedicated servers for their RTS games, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think SC2 was peer-to-peer.

Nah, back then there were no choices, any game from RTS to Shooter was p2p.
SC2 came out in 2010, why would you compare that to a much older game like wc3 or aoe3??

From a bit of research I did right now:
Quake came out in 1996 and it was the first game to have a client-server networking model. Because internet was very slow back then and this could create major desynchronisation problems if a computer in the game waited too long to synch player moves with the server, they introduced an innovation called client-side prediction (it's mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(vi ... QuakeWorld).

Ensemble went with this peer-to-peer game design choice because it was cheaper for Microsoft to only run a single matchmaking server (ESO) for all the players in the world. Instead of having the game go through regional servers and have every game hosted on that regional server.

I think you don't understand what p2p is in this regard. It dosesn't matter jackshit where the servers operate from, you aren't connected to the official servers on ESO while you play your opponent anyway. It's just between you and your opponent. The official servers just serve as a hub. Regional ESO servers wouldn't change a damn, as long as games aren't hosted on them.

I know how p2p works. But still, even having regional p2p servers would have been better, even just for how fast games would start, which depends on the matchmaking service. Just think of how many FTJ errors and how many ppl sometimes are unable to join, because of ESO's crap networking (all going through the same server in the USA).

Again, I'm not sure how things were done back in the early 2000s, though I think it's possible there were game studios that had their RTS games hosted on dedicated servers (which costs more).

Haha nope dude, the technology and infrastructure just wasn't there yet. That would lag even more, given most people had 56k internet back then.
Every single game was p2p, it was cheap and good enough for pretty much everything. Especially with shooters, people hosted their own servers anyway, paid like 50-10 bucks a month and chose the location to be close to them. The server also functioned as a server then, and clients connected. People were not connected to each other, only the server.

Could be. As I mentioned, the client-server technology came out in 1996, so Ensemble could have definitely tried to use that even if it would have been harder to implement in an RTS, back then.

[aaryngend]

From a bit of research I did right now:
Quake came out in 1996 and it was the first game to have a client-server networking model. Because internet was very slow back then and this could create major desynchronisation problems if a computer in the game waited too long to synch player moves with the server, they introduced an innovation called client-side prediction (it's mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(vi ... QuakeWorld).

Client-server network models for FPS games exist since the dawn of time. What I was trying to say is that no fps devs hosted official servers themselves, they let people host their own. It wasn't until the early 2010s I think when they started to host the servers themselves, removing the option of you hosting a server altogether. Again, this has nothing to do with p2p <-> server-client.

I know how p2p works. But still, even having regional p2p servers would have been better, even just for how fast games would start, which depends on the matchmaking service.

What p2p server? P2P means peer to peer, there is no server in the equation! If there were any servers, it wouldn't be p2p to begin with. No, in aoe3, the ESO servers have nothing to do with how fast the game starts.

Just think of how many FTJ errors and how many ppl sometimes are unable to join, because of ESO's crap networking (all going through the same server in the USA).

Again, failed to join has nothing to do with ESO servers. You connect directly to your opponent. You don't go through any server. I think you just don't understand this tiny yet important aspect.

Could be. As I mentioned, the client-server technology came out in 1996, so Ensemble could have definitely tried to use that even if it would have been harder to implement in an RTS, back then.

But those are FPS games!!! Not RTS. RTS games are much more complicated in that regard.
Look at the WarCraft 3 FAQ:

Does Warcraft III have a Client/Server Model?
No. Due to the amount of units and the number of players in a game of Warcraft III, it is not possible to implement a straight Client/Server architecture as in Diablo II. We are using a variation of the peer-to-peer model that allows us to eliminate some of the abuses found in StarCraft games.

Also, while having a client-server model, you could still play FPS games like Quake through p2p on the internet. One of the clients acts as a host and client at the same time then.
If aoe3 only had 5 units per player at all times, a pure server-mode would work perfectly. That's why LoL or Dota 2 work without relying on p2p. In an rts game, the whole game state must be synchronized across all participating clients. Can't have thinking one client there are 5 uhlans on point x and client 2 thinking there are none.