Quoting tperge, reply 11
So for 2v2 you need 3x4 k/s = 12 k/s = 96kb/s = .094 Mb/s
3v3 needs 5x4 k/s = 20 k/s = 160kb/s = .16Mb/s
4v4 needs 7x4 k/s = 28 k/s = 224kb/s = .22Mb/s
5v5 needs 9x4 k/s = 36 k/s = 288kb/s = .28Mb
if thats the case, almost noone in germany should be able to play 3v3 or more, cause i´ve got one of the biggest "normal" connections, which has a 100kb/s upload maximum!
i dont see ANY advantage in this p2p crap. until now i only see big disadvantages like lagging, connectivity issues and upload usage.
the only advantage i can image is the reduced costs to buy and maintain servers... but for the enduser thats not really an advantage, is it?
as for now, in my opinion, p2p is pure crap!
tperge is using figures for Kbits/sec, it sounds like you have 100kBYTES/sec, which would be 800kbits (I think).
Is your internet advertised as 1Mbit upload and you get around 100kbytes/sec upload on torrents etc? That's how mine is, and it's easily enough for 5v5. The problem is if even one of the other 9 players has insufficient upload, they lag the game for everyone. And it's quite hard to stop people with small uploads joining games, especially if so many don't even understand what their upload is.
:edit: Maybe Stardock could implement a quick speedtest into the front end of the game, to find out everyone's upload speed. This could then be displayed next to a player's name just like ping in the lobby.
I tried playing a 5v5 after the improved netcode and it still lagged, so did a 4v4. Now I'm waiting for 1.1, at least the new local proxies will stop pings jumping by 200.