Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

Link zu dieser Vergleichsansicht

Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende Überarbeitung
Nächste Überarbeitung		Vorhergehende Überarbeitung
lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_c:2019-02-18_related_work [18.02.2019 22:55] – [Latency in Games] fia06900lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_c:2019-02-18_related_work [18.02.2019 23:01] (aktuell) – [References] fia06900
Zeile 37: Zeile 37:
 A field on which latency has an important impact, are games. This was also the topic of Andrea’s literature review where she found out, that ‘Mark and Kajal Claypool have provided a solid foundation of research regarding latency in games, being cited by the majority of other researchers in this field (Fischer, 2018).’ They classify games in the following categories: first person avatar, third person avatar and omnipresent (Claypool & Claypool, 2006) and provide an overview about the different phases of a game and the impact of latency on each is given (this is listed very shortly without further explanations). During the first two phases - setup and synchronization - the players do not get affected significantly by latency. The most important part of a game is the play phase, where latency impacts the player actions and the gaming experience. The transition phase is not affected by latency as well. For a better understanding of their study, which is summarized in the following, there is a short explanation what the two player actions are.  The first one - deadline - is the time an action takes to complete and the second one - precision - is the accuracy needed by the player for that action (Claypool & Claypool, 2015).  A field on which latency has an important impact, are games. This was also the topic of Andrea’s literature review where she found out, that ‘Mark and Kajal Claypool have provided a solid foundation of research regarding latency in games, being cited by the majority of other researchers in this field (Fischer, 2018).’ They classify games in the following categories: first person avatar, third person avatar and omnipresent (Claypool & Claypool, 2006) and provide an overview about the different phases of a game and the impact of latency on each is given (this is listed very shortly without further explanations). During the first two phases - setup and synchronization - the players do not get affected significantly by latency. The most important part of a game is the play phase, where latency impacts the player actions and the gaming experience. The transition phase is not affected by latency as well. For a better understanding of their study, which is summarized in the following, there is a short explanation what the two player actions are.  The first one - deadline - is the time an action takes to complete and the second one - precision - is the accuracy needed by the player for that action (Claypool & Claypool, 2015). 
  
-A bachelor thesis of Mark Claypool’s students (Christopher Burgess, //Quantifying the Effect of Latency on Game Actions in BZFlag//) is about measuring the effects of latency on gameplay in an online game. For this, the Game BZFlag was manipulated. This experiment is described in the paper ‘Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games’ (Claypool & Claypool, 2010). ‘[Their] approach to evaluate and empirically validate [their] precision & deadline model [...] and insights [...] was to modify an open source, online game to allow for controlled precision & deadline experiments over a range of latencies (Claypool & Claypool, 2010, page 5) ’. +A bachelor thesis of Mark Claypool’s students (Christopher Burgess, Nathan Roy //Quantifying the Effect of Latency on Game Actions in BZFlag//) is about measuring the effects of latency on gameplay in an online game. For this, the Game BZFlag was manipulated. This experiment is described in the paper ‘Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games’ (Claypool & Claypool, 2010). ‘[Their] approach to evaluate and empirically validate [their] precision & deadline model [...] and insights [...] was to modify an open source, online game to allow for controlled precision & deadline experiments over a range of latencies (Claypool & Claypool, 2010, page 5) ’. 
  
 Besides this game, another game was manipulated: Saucer Hunt (Claypool et al., 2015). ‘The player was AI controlled, the game set to “headless” and the frame time set to 0 in order to run the experiments in the background. All combinations of the weapon for speeds 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and areas of effect 0, to 10 were tested, a total of 77 combinations. For each combination, delays from 0 to 990 milliseconds were tested in steps of 33 milliseconds (one game loop). For each weapon configuration at each latency, one-thousand games were played for each combination. In all, about sixty-thousand hours of gameplay were emulated, or nearly seven years straight of playing Saucer Hunt (Casiez et al., 2015, page 4).’ Besides this game, another game was manipulated: Saucer Hunt (Claypool et al., 2015). ‘The player was AI controlled, the game set to “headless” and the frame time set to 0 in order to run the experiments in the background. All combinations of the weapon for speeds 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and areas of effect 0, to 10 were tested, a total of 77 combinations. For each combination, delays from 0 to 990 milliseconds were tested in steps of 33 milliseconds (one game loop). For each weapon configuration at each latency, one-thousand games were played for each combination. In all, about sixty-thousand hours of gameplay were emulated, or nearly seven years straight of playing Saucer Hunt (Casiez et al., 2015, page 4).’
Zeile 47: Zeile 47:
 In their paper ‘On Latency and Player Actions in Online Games‘ they present the following graphic and sum their results up: ‘[...] Above the grey region, quality is generally acceptable while below the gray region, quality is generally unnacceptable [sic!] (Claypool & Claypool, 2016, page 12).’ In their paper ‘Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games’ they stated acceptable limits to response times of the system. They claim that ’[a] common conception among game players is that network latencies below 100 milliseconds are essential for unimpaired game play, with maximum tolerable latencies being just over 100 milliseconds, regardless of the game genre (Claypool & Claypool, 2010, page 6).’ In their paper ‘On Latency and Player Actions in Online Games‘ they present the following graphic and sum their results up: ‘[...] Above the grey region, quality is generally acceptable while below the gray region, quality is generally unnacceptable [sic!] (Claypool & Claypool, 2016, page 12).’ In their paper ‘Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games’ they stated acceptable limits to response times of the system. They claim that ’[a] common conception among game players is that network latencies below 100 milliseconds are essential for unimpaired game play, with maximum tolerable latencies being just over 100 milliseconds, regardless of the game genre (Claypool & Claypool, 2010, page 6).’
 ====== References ====== ====== References ======
- +  * Bockes et al. (2018): LagBox – Measuring the Latency of USB-Connected Input Devices. 
- +  * Bradley and Lang (1994): Measuring emotion The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential.  
 +  * Burgess & Roy (2009): Quantifying the Effect of Latency on Game Actions in BZFlag  
 +  * Casiez et al. (2015): Looking through the Eye of the Mouse: A Simple Method for Measuring End-to-end Latency using an Optical Mouse. 
 +  * Casiez et al. (2017): Characterizing Latency in Touch and Button-Equipped Interactive Systems.  
 +  * Claypool & Claypool (2006): On Latency and Player Actions in Online Games. 
 +  * Claypool & Claypool (2010): Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games. 
 +  * Claypool & Claypool (2015): A taxonomy for player actions with latency in network games. 
 +  * Demleitner (2018): A Review of Fitts' Law and Latency of Input Devices.  
 +  * Fischer (2018): Latency in Games.  
 +  * MacKenzie (1991): A Comparison of Input Devices in Element Pointing and Dragging Tasks:  
 +  * Maierhöfer (2018): Latency and Fitts' Law. 
 +  * Martens et al. (2018): Effects of low-range latency on performance and perception in a virtual, unstable second-order control task. 
 +  * Wilson (2009): Exploring Input Lag Inside and Out.