Joe krall presentation

215 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
215
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Joe krall presentation

  1. 1. Analysis of Network Performance in Online Games Joe Krall PhD Student
  2. 2. Presentation Overview 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 2 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  3. 3. Introduction 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 3 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  4. 4. Introduction 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 4 Games need to be fun Why else would people play games? What makes a game fun? What about immersion? So focused you hardly notice you play But distractions can break immersion
  5. 5. Introduction 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 5 SPE promotes fun in games Design with intent of minimizing distraction Surveyed papers To prove our points Distractions do degrade fun Conclusion Now go make fun games
  6. 6. Fun in Video Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 6 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  7. 7. Fun in Video Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 7 Games are supposed to be fun, right? Fun -> Immersion Immersion -> Fun When are games not fun? Subjective reasoning Too hard to play Negative Karma Performance Issues
  8. 8. Fun in Video Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 8 Performance Issues Game runs slow Network lag/delay Cause Distractions Effect of Distractions “C’mon, load up already!” Break Immersion
  9. 9. Distractions to Fun 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 9 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  10. 10. Distractions to Fun 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 10 What is a distraction? Immersion Requires steady state of concentration No Immersion, No Fun Two Kinds of Distractions: External Internal An interruption; an obstacle to concentration
  11. 11. Distractions to Fun 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 11 External Distractions Outside of the computer In the Real World Solutions Earphones, private room? No real Control
  12. 12. Distractions to Fun 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 12 Internal Distraction Inside the computer Hardware, Software, Network Hardware Faulty I/O Slow client or servers (Delay) Solutions? – Buy Upgrades & SPE
  13. 13. Internal Distractions 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 13 Software Code not optimized Too fancy, takes too long to run Solutions: Optimize, Redesign & SPE Network End-to-End Delay / Latency Packet Loss & Jitter Solutions: Upgrade network & SPE Common Solution: SPE
  14. 14. SPE in online Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 14 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  15. 15. SPE in online Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 15 Want to: Minimize distractions Run efficiently Save money in long run Don’t let performance degrade fun Levels of Distraction No Distraction – unnoticeable delay Slight Distraction – noticeable delay Major Distraction – significant delay
  16. 16. SPE in online Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 16 Levels of Distraction No Distraction – unnoticeable delay Slight Distraction – noticeable delay Major Distraction – significant delay Key Parameters End-To-End Delay (Latency) Total Delay (System + Network) Total Throughput Jitter & Packet Loss
  17. 17. SPE in online Games 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 17 Developers: Define performance requirements Design for the available hardware & network Levels of Requirements Minimum Requirements Few Major Distractions, Some Slight Distractions Recommended Requirements No Major Distractions, Few Slight Distractions
  18. 18. Surveyed Papers - XBlast 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 18 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  19. 19. Surveyed Papers - XBlast 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 19 Resembles Bomberman
  20. 20. Surveyed Papers - XBlast 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 20 Experiment: 12 Test Subjects representative population Test effect of Latency to MOS Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Scale from 1 to 5 Player perception (game rating) 5 = best
  21. 21. Surveyed Papers - XBlast 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 21 Game Rules 140s long or lose all lives Each player matched with another Each player plays three times Asked to rate each game on MOS Control Variable Induced Latency Expect MOS to decrease for high latency Subjects do not know the amount of latency
  22. 22. Surveyed Papers - XBlast 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 22 Results MOS does decrease Telecommunication standards 3.5 MOS is “acceptable” For XBlast, this means 139ms Latency Scenario latency Avg. MOS Scenario 1 0ms 3.92 Scenario 2 250ms 3.12 Scenario 3 500ms 2.58
  23. 23. Surveyed Papers – Game Score 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 23 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  24. 24. Surveyed Papers – Game Score 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 24 Two main contributions: New “Game Score” metric (GOS) A pair of experiments Game Opinion Score (GOS) Percentage rating “How well did you play?” Score: outcome of the game
  25. 25. Surveyed Papers – Game Score 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 25 First Experiment – A Questionaire What players think about latency in games Maximum tolerable & acceptable latency Posted online around game forums 319 Respondents Results Average of 80ms is acceptable Above 150ms is untolerable
  26. 26. Surveyed Papers – Game Score 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 26 Second Experiment – Lab Experiment Selected 8 players Organized into two teams of four Test effects of network on MOS & GOS Network setup: One side gets lag Other doesn’t
  27. 27. Surveyed Papers – Game Score 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 27 Tests: 3 Games: Need for Speed Underground 2, Counter Strike and Unreal Tournament 2004 Latency vs. MOS & GOS Jitter vs. MOS & GOS Results: Latency is a significant indicator of MOS Latency – weird effects on GOS Jitter is unsignificant
  28. 28. Surveyed Papers - Conclusion 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 28 Introduction Fun in Video Games Distractions to Fun SPE in Online Games Surveyed Papers XBlast Experiment Game Score Experiment Conclusion
  29. 29. Surveyed Papers - Conclusion 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 29 Relationship between Fun & Immersion Distractions break Immersion Distractions caused by performance Use SPE to keep distractions minimal Set requirements and develop for them Game should run smoothly now But is the game fun? <Future research>
  30. 30. The End 11/29/2010 Joe Krall - West Virginia University 30 Thanks for listening! Any Questions?

×