|
On January 24 2021 07:21 Rus_Brain wrote: Technically ShieldBattery is running old 1.16.1 version, right? Connection is peer2peer or some sort of a hostbots are possible? (Like WC3 Novosibirsk/Russia hostbots make Eu vs Kr playable) They have been working on making it work with RM.
|
On January 24 2021 07:21 Rus_Brain wrote: Technically ShieldBattery is running old 1.16.1 version, right? Connection is peer2peer or some sort of a hostbots are possible? (Like WC3 Novosibirsk/Russia hostbots make Eu vs Kr playable)
It's peer to peer.
|
Where is a safe place to download the 1.16.1 version to see how it plays now ? Is it possible?
|
gonna be a bummer if queue breaks more.
tbh, I prefer SCR queue system than to shield battery. I have 0 problems playing koreans 95% of the time and I found shield battery to be a bit unforgiving in skill levels of other players.
|
On January 24 2021 07:21 Rus_Brain wrote: Technically ShieldBattery is running old 1.16.1 version, right? Connection is peer2peer or some sort of a hostbots are possible? (Like WC3 Novosibirsk/Russia hostbots make Eu vs Kr playable) We have Remastered working (but it's not on our public server currently). Network connections are proxied peer-to-peer (that is, each pair of players in a game picks a proxy server that is ideal for them, so a game still involves a separate connection per pair of players, but there are no issues with port forwarding/hosting ever).
On January 24 2021 16:43 SchAmToo wrote: gonna be a bummer if queue breaks more.
tbh, I prefer SCR queue system than to shield battery. I have 0 problems playing koreans 95% of the time and I found shield battery to be a bit unforgiving in skill levels of other players. I'm not sure what that judgment really means tbh, we never shipped matchmaking on ShieldBattery to the public (or had open account creation), so there's not really much to compare. The previous launch of SB was a closed beta that never got to the point of delivering the basic features we had in mind before Blizzard made development very hard.
|
On January 24 2021 11:05 TelecoM wrote: Where is a safe place to download the 1.16.1 version to see how it plays now ? Is it possible?
SC 1.16.1 is included in SCHNAIL (you need to register before download): https://schnail.com As a bonus you get bots to play against.
ICCup webpage provides download as well.
|
United Kingdom12021 Posts
On January 24 2021 00:52 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 00:16 LegalLord wrote: This absolutely felt inevitable from the get-go. Though SCR got a lot of good fanfare at the beginning, I always felt that transitioning back to a Blizzard-centered system would eventually end badly. To its credit, it came at a time when ICCup was in terminal decline and the only other credible incumbents (e.g. Fish) were terrible, but a private server solution was always the answer in the long run. Games survive better if you don't depend on its publisher to stay interested in it, that's a lesson learned through painful experience many times over.
At least it wasn't as bad as WC3: Refunded. What was terrible about Fish?
Given Fish's anti cheat was essentially Malware I'd say that was a problem.
|
i dont care about new developments, just keep the servers alive \
tec27 doing God's work
|
On January 25 2021 00:49 toriak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 11:05 TelecoM wrote: Where is a safe place to download the 1.16.1 version to see how it plays now ? Is it possible? SC 1.16.1 is included in SCHNAIL (you need to register before download): As a bonus you get bots to play against. This version of 1.16, as far as I am aware, is packaged specifically for SCHNAIL and I've not been able to use it for multiplayer - I had spoken to Sonko about it, and this was intentional. However, I didn't try ICCup, so that might still work.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2021 00:51 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 00:52 Jealous wrote:On January 24 2021 00:16 LegalLord wrote: This absolutely felt inevitable from the get-go. Though SCR got a lot of good fanfare at the beginning, I always felt that transitioning back to a Blizzard-centered system would eventually end badly. To its credit, it came at a time when ICCup was in terminal decline and the only other credible incumbents (e.g. Fish) were terrible, but a private server solution was always the answer in the long run. Games survive better if you don't depend on its publisher to stay interested in it, that's a lesson learned through painful experience many times over.
At least it wasn't as bad as WC3: Refunded. What was terrible about Fish? Given Fish's anti cheat was essentially Malware I'd say that was a problem. It was all-around a pretty bad platform. I remember for the longest time it was just straight Fighting Spirit until they finally added a couple of new maps to ladder at the very end. The veteran playerbase was its only saving grace.
|
On January 24 2021 21:21 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 07:21 Rus_Brain wrote: Technically ShieldBattery is running old 1.16.1 version, right? Connection is peer2peer or some sort of a hostbots are possible? (Like WC3 Novosibirsk/Russia hostbots make Eu vs Kr playable) We have Remastered working (but it's not on our public server currently). Network connections are proxied peer-to-peer (that is, each pair of players in a game picks a proxy server that is ideal for them, so a game still involves a separate connection per pair of players, but there are no issues with port forwarding/hosting ever).
Question on this, but doesn't this increase latency between players by having a proxy server in between? If my ideal proxy is in euro, the korean's is in korea, do we then have to wait for the proxies to transmit to each other or is 3rd 'middle' proxy chosen to alleviate this? Would there be an optional forced p2p for those of us capable of portforwarding?
|
I think the best thing would be server hosted games like in sc2, europeans could play against koreans that way, both connecting to a US central server and playing with ~130-140 ping. (TR20 low or TR24 high).
Or hosted like rus_brain suggested, in Novosibirsk, probably can even get TR24 low between korea and europe then. (as happens in WC3).
|
On January 25 2021 06:25 Armathai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 21:21 tec27 wrote:On January 24 2021 07:21 Rus_Brain wrote: Technically ShieldBattery is running old 1.16.1 version, right? Connection is peer2peer or some sort of a hostbots are possible? (Like WC3 Novosibirsk/Russia hostbots make Eu vs Kr playable) We have Remastered working (but it's not on our public server currently). Network connections are proxied peer-to-peer (that is, each pair of players in a game picks a proxy server that is ideal for them, so a game still involves a separate connection per pair of players, but there are no issues with port forwarding/hosting ever). Question on this, but doesn't this increase latency between players by having a proxy server in between? If my ideal proxy is in euro, the korean's is in korea, do we then have to wait for the proxies to transmit to each other or is 3rd 'middle' proxy chosen to alleviate this? Would there be an optional forced p2p for those of us capable of portforwarding? Given the prevalence of easy DDOS, allowing/encouraging straight P2P play as games used to do just seems like a pretty bad idea to me. It also prevents us from monitoring things on boxes we control (for things like hacking, collecting replays as the game progresses, assigning true disconnect fault, etc.).
These proxy servers can actually provide *improved* latency though. You shouldn't see them as necessarily an additional hop outside of the normal path, but rather a *different* hop, one that is in a big network provider's datacenter that has good connectivity/routes to other parts of the world. We don't pick ideal proxy servers based on your connection, we pick it based on *the pair of players*. So your "ideal proxy" would be the one that minimizes latency between you and the Korean player together, not something that is chosen in isolation. People use VPNs to guarantee a particular (fast) route to other areas of the world, and it's sort of a similar idea. At some point in the future we may even adopt a more directly similar approach, or use something like NetworkNext which is focused on maintaining that sort of network.
We don't have any kind of analytic data to support this, but anecdotally players were far happier with our approach (especially in team games) than ICCup, despite the underlying game protocol being identical. I'd encourage you to actually try it out before you ask us to roll it back
|
ShieldBattery had amazing latency for me when I played fwiw. Played team games, FFAs, and obs games with players from all over.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I can also vouch that sb worked really well back when I played it before RM release. Seeing as we aren't getting much changes anymore, I can see sb playing a major role in the future if the ladder breaks down and blizzard decides not to make any fixes.
|
Dam this sucks, it doesn't even cost them that much to maintain a team to run BW.
Anyway at this point I just hope they maintain the servers, update new ladder seasons once a quarter, fix bugs and hacks. That's all I ask for really.
|
On January 26 2021 17:03 Dante08 wrote:
Anyway at this point I just hope they maintain the servers, update new ladder seasons once a quarter, fix bugs and hacks. That's all I ask for really.
Um, maybe I'm missing something but when did they actually do this?
|
Belgium6755 Posts
This all went to shit the minute Activision and Blizzard merged. Fuck that company.
|
|
|
|
|
|