|
On March 21 2011 23:02 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net. [Citation needed] on your 250 ping hypothesis. I believe the game tries to normalize the delay between players in a given game, but I've never read that they have lag hardcoded into the game.
Hm, unsure about sc2 but I do know that lag is hardcoded into both wc3 and WoW. In WoW you can select which latency you want yourself but in wc3 it's like 250 base ms. They put it in to avoid players getting out of sync and causing lag screens. That's what things like LC and DZ circumvent, they let you lower your base-lag.
|
I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.
I admit that bnet isn't always the most reliable and sometimes the lag is unbearable. However, they are a business that creates video games for profit.
Imagine if everyone just stole everything that they wanted. Obviously people don't care that they acting immorally and without any consideration of the consequences of their actions.
Sure the people that create the games are wealthy but what about the other people that work for the company or are associated with the video game making process.
There are secretaries, janitors, delivery men, manufacturers, store employees, etc.
You are not just pulling one over on Blizzard, you are hurting everyone in the process because if Blizzard ( or any industry) has to cut back to loss of profits they will start from the bottom up.
I still know that most people will say w/e the greedy corporation is evil and needs to be brought down as you step over the homeless man that lost his job because that same corporation had layoffs.
Besides all of that LAN will be great!
|
On March 21 2011 23:05 Bergys wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net. What do you even mean it was built to be played on 250 ms+ lol? Are you seriously arguing that you cannot play sc2 with under 250 ms? Either case you should try playing the single player, afaik it has no latency added to it and breaks your whole argument. As long as the people playing have a sufficient internet connection to play at a lower speed then 250 ms, you can play the game at lower then 250 ms.
It is true, there is a minimum latency built in. 125ms, making for a 250ms roundtrip I believe. Blizzard did this for warcraft 3 as well, I believe it was 100ms there, but you could use 3rd party tools like listchecker to lower it to whatever you wanted.
|
On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net.
I'm pretty sure it was built with the internet in mind, since they had already had amazing success with diablo bnet, and it came with bnet out of the package. They also supported the game with weekly tournaments played over bnet and custom map features. So I guess paying those employees to do that kind of stuff wasn't to support bnet functionality, right?
Again, I see no reason as to why it wouldn't be better with 1 ping. If they want to add 250ms to make it more "normal", then whatever. As long as I get 250ms when I play KR from NA, or EU from KR. I'm not sure as to why it would be better to have 250ms built in, and I'm not sure why you think that blizzard would shit all over their own version of LAN, when, apparently, there's a version that won't force you to play with lag that you can get for free.
|
On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net.
You brought this 250ms thing up over and over again. Can you please provide some proof?
|
They'll never add lan and it has nothing to do with piracy either. It's about charging tournament holder a a huge fee if it ever really takes off like BW. They want to maintain ownership of rights to broadcast which is where real money is at. Next they want you to pay for name changes and smurfs, etc which is more money again. And finally I bet if you read fine print they can charge a monthly bnet fee at any point they wish like WOW if you want to keep playing.
|
On March 21 2011 23:08 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net. You brought this 250ms thing up over and over again. Can you please provide some proof?
Blizzard stated themselves that this is true, which should be proof enough.
They said it was to avoid people having adventages over eachother thanks to their connection during SC1. Now they're somehow of the opinion its still best to keep it this way. At one point during the beta they lowered it for the USA server to 100ms but because none of the beta testers at the time mentioned it on the beta forum they figured people didnt care so they reverted the change.
(I thought its 200ms btw)
|
On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games.
bla.
1. this isnt about pirating. its about a feature that also opens the door to some kinds of pirating.the fact that pretty much evryone here has a copy of sc2 should give you a hint that people arent happy about pirating but that a sometimes important feature may get forced back into the game.
2. sc2 single player is cracked since day1 of release (maybe even earlier)
3. lan pirating with hamachi etc would mostly affect the seperated asian etc communities. bnet would still go strong and if you want the somewhat full expirience you will still play on bnet(be it cause of matchmaking,custom games, simply 1000 times more users etc)
there are steamless cracked versions of games like TF2 or left4dead too. but almost no one plays them cause its annoying as fuck and makes the game way less enjoyable.
even pgt/gamei/icc while beeing very popular were only used by a smallish part of the community. and there you get pretty much EVRYTHING normal bnet offers you just better.
its a good thing if people crack it cause it makes blizz doing it themselves more likely and even if not it opens the possibility to play certain torunament matches (players agreement,no one needs to know) with it to avoid server problems/lags.
the pirating issue isnt that big and given blizzards bnet policy (lan,no gateway selection, one acc etc) its time that someone kicks their butt a bit.
(btw anyone willing to take bets that crossrealm play once introduced will cost atleast 10$ /server?)
I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.
never. you really think blizzard is gonna drop starcraft2 just because few thousand people in taiwan/china/brazil (sorry but thats afaik where hamachi is strongest) wont pay for a game they most likely couldnt afford anyways?
and a "large" portion is totally unrealistic. even if as much as 30% of the community even knew about that the vast majority will still buy the games cause they want to hang out with friends, play in tournaments, play customs, play ladder with more then just a handful of people.
|
On March 21 2011 23:08 Yettyman wrote:
I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.
I admit that bnet isn't always the most reliable and sometimes the lag is unbearable. However, they are a business that creates video games for profit.
Imagine if everyone just stole everything that they wanted. Obviously people don't care that they acting immorally and without any consideration of the consequences of their actions.
Sure the people that create the games are wealthy but what about the other people that work for the company or are associated with the video game making process.
There are secretaries, janitors, delivery men, manufacturers, store employees, etc.
You are not just pulling one over on Blizzard, you are hurting everyone in the process because if Blizzard ( or any industry) has to cut back to loss of profits they will start from the bottom up.
I still know that most people will say w/e the greedy corporation is evil and needs to be brought down as you step over the homeless man that lost his job because that same corporation had layoffs.
Besides all of that LAN will be great!
No ones threatening to steal the game... we just want in our Legally bought copies.. the feature that everyone has asked for since day 1.. and that every other game since forever has offered. They have my money for game 1. I plan on giving them money for expansions 2 and 3... giving the fanbase something they are asking for in a product they'll be expected to shell out money for (lets not get it wrong... blizzard isn't making these expansions to be nice.. it's to make money) we ask, they give... they get money, we get enjoyment. 2 way transaction.
|
LC was the best thing that ever happened to WC3 though. The WC3 ladder is basically unplayable once you're used to the better responsiveness. It leads to so many micro mistakes just because the game doesn't react to your commands and it becomes frustrating quickly.
For SC2, I don't think it's too necessary to have it as low as possible though. The game is faster paced than WC3, sure, but there is hardly any "twitch" micro needed such as using potions or town portal scrolls on time, or blocking other units. Not saying it wouldn't improve the game, but it's just not necessary to allow for high level play.
|
On March 21 2011 22:56 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 17:53 karpo wrote:On March 21 2011 17:15 DirtYLOu wrote:
And also guys think of leagues like NASL, TSL. Playing without lag... Cuz i don't have to tell u guys that players will play with MASSIVE lags.. Why would LAN capability somehow remove the latency between korea and the us? Do you know anything about routing/latency/computer networks? I think the better question here is, do you know anything about computers/ networking? If you've ever played on LAN you know that the direct connection between computers allows for much smoother games. If you don't think that a clean connection between Korea and US can be established you should go play a Korean on iCCup with AH turned off, and then play him again with AH turned on. If you don't notice a difference instantly (from the worker split) then I don't know what to tell you...
Sure LANs provide the lowest latency, as switching is faster than routing. What i do know is that tunnel or no tunnel, the traffic needs to be routed from Korea to EU/US. This involves latency either way. A better way to solve this would be to make koreans connect to local battle.net servers that forward traffic to EU/US.
|
The lack of lan isn't just about piracy.
That's a big factor I'm sure, but the biggest reason is because Blizzard wants to be in complete control of the experience you have while playing this game. They don't want any hacks, mods, or anything else (outside of things created with the Blizzard approved Galaxy Editor of course) that they themselves aren't responsible for.
They want you to pay for this game as a service rather than a product.
That's the direction games are moving toward these days.
As to why they can't give tournaments a special LAN version, it's probably a question of priority. They don't value tournaments as much as they claim to. What they value more are the majority of players, who don't even know tournaments exist.
|
Face it guys. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about what you think. They will go on with what THEY think would benefit THEM. Patches are there just to let you have the feeling that THEY CARE FOR YOU. But it's been long and there hasn't been GREAT CHANGES for SC2. Name ONE thing they added/removed that THE MAJORITY of the community(not only here on TL) appreciated?
|
http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126181
Unfortunately the forums where the blue post was is gone now since the battle.net migration.
It's just how the game was balanced. And I'd be surprised if you're not playing with 125ms delay even in single player. And 125 + your ms on multiplayer. Plus the opponent's latency for a round trip.
And I'm not exactly against LAN, I just don't see how much usefulness it has nowadays. Would be like fluff. If no outside leagues would be allowed then it would also see little use. For a decently sized investment after game launch ... doubt Blizzard would go ahead and add it.
|
On March 21 2011 23:08 Bergys wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:02 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net. [Citation needed] on your 250 ping hypothesis. I believe the game tries to normalize the delay between players in a given game, but I've never read that they have lag hardcoded into the game. Hm, unsure about sc2 but I do know that lag is hardcoded into both wc3 and WoW. In WoW you can select which latency you want yourself but in wc3 it's like 250 base ms. They put it in to avoid players getting out of sync and causing lag screens. That's what things like LC and DZ circumvent, they let you lower your base-lag.
Lol, there is no lag coded into WC3. LAN play was soooo much better than the b.net ladder in WC3. The latency filter in WoW just lets you queue up a spell before you would normally be able to see it be cast because of your ping, and the option to do that it not enabled by default. It is in no way a mandated ping, WoW just has some terrible servers, though with a global cooldown on abilities it doesn't matter nearly as much as in an RTS where you're only limited by how fast you are.
Edit: My WC3 knowledge is apparently out of date, as I stopped following it years ago.
|
On March 21 2011 23:17 aimaimaim wrote:
Face it guys. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about what you think. They will go on with what THEY think would benefit THEM. Patches are there just to let you have the feeling that THEY CARE FOR YOU. But it's been long and there hasn't been GREAT CHANGES for SC2. Name ONE thing they added/removed that THE MAJORITY of the community(not only here on TL) appreciated?
Activision. Blizzard name they kept because it actually had a good reputation but it exists no more.
|
I can't say I'm happy with it. Sure, I'd love to have LAN, but be it as a legal method. LAN latency is necessary especially for tournaments, but unnecessary for paying players. If anything, this will just increase the piracy of the game to the skies, and that totally sucks.
<edit>
On March 21 2011 23:17 aimaimaim wrote:
Face it guys. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about what you think. They will go on with what THEY think would benefit THEM. Patches are there just to let you have the feeling that THEY CARE FOR YOU. But it's been long and there hasn't been GREAT CHANGES for SC2. Name ONE thing they added/removed that THE MAJORITY of the community(not only here on TL) appreciated?
New observer functions on patch 1.3, Masters/Grandmasters League. Two on the go, but there may be more stuff. Maybe Siege Tank nerf?
|
On March 21 2011 23:17 aimaimaim wrote:
Face it guys. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about what you think. They will go on with what THEY think would benefit THEM. Patches are there just to let you have the feeling that THEY CARE FOR YOU. But it's been long and there hasn't been GREAT CHANGES for SC2. Name ONE thing they added/removed that THE MAJORITY of the community(not only here on TL) appreciated?
chat channels. even if weak they atleast went out of their(shitty) plans and implemented them.
also i doubt the "majority" of the playerbase cares about gateway selection,lan or even online reps. its the caring inolved part of the community that wants that stuff.
just to be fair ~
but ofcourse its that part of the community that "runs" the game. and without us sc2 would just been another RTS that people play through 2 times , play online for 2 weeks and then throw into the corner.
|
On March 21 2011 23:15 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:56 GreEny K wrote:On March 21 2011 17:53 karpo wrote:On March 21 2011 17:15 DirtYLOu wrote:
And also guys think of leagues like NASL, TSL. Playing without lag... Cuz i don't have to tell u guys that players will play with MASSIVE lags.. Why would LAN capability somehow remove the latency between korea and the us? Do you know anything about routing/latency/computer networks? I think the better question here is, do you know anything about computers/ networking? If you've ever played on LAN you know that the direct connection between computers allows for much smoother games. If you don't think that a clean connection between Korea and US can be established you should go play a Korean on iCCup with AH turned off, and then play him again with AH turned on. If you don't notice a difference instantly (from the worker split) then I don't know what to tell you... Sure LANs provide the lowest latency, as switching is faster than routing. What i do know is that tunnel or no tunnel, the traffic needs to be routed from Korea to EU/US. This involves latency either way. A better way to solve this would be to make koreans connect to local battle.net servers that forward traffic to EU/US.
No, because a middleman is what causes this issue in the first place. Here, let me put it in laymans terms.
Situation A: You walk to the store. You walk home. 10 minute travel time, both ways.
Situation B: You walk to the police station to drop off a parking ticket, which is out of your way to the store. You walk to the store. 10 minutes to police station, 15 minutes to store, 10 minutes home.
Which one is quicker? It's not about eliminating lag; it's about reducing it as much as possible.
And the part about getting koreans to connect to a local bnet server; that's made impossible because blizzard wanted to seperate the ladders entirely. They have to connect to our server to play here.
|
On March 21 2011 23:14 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:08 Yettyman wrote:
I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.
I admit that bnet isn't always the most reliable and sometimes the lag is unbearable. However, they are a business that creates video games for profit.
Imagine if everyone just stole everything that they wanted. Obviously people don't care that they acting immorally and without any consideration of the consequences of their actions.
Sure the people that create the games are wealthy but what about the other people that work for the company or are associated with the video game making process.
There are secretaries, janitors, delivery men, manufacturers, store employees, etc.
You are not just pulling one over on Blizzard, you are hurting everyone in the process because if Blizzard ( or any industry) has to cut back to loss of profits they will start from the bottom up.
I still know that most people will say w/e the greedy corporation is evil and needs to be brought down as you step over the homeless man that lost his job because that same corporation had layoffs.
Besides all of that LAN will be great! No ones threatening to steal the game... we just want in our Legally bought copies.. the feature that everyone has asked for since day 1.. and that every other game since forever has offered. They have my money for game 1. I plan on giving them money for expansions 2 and 3... giving the fanbase something they are asking for in a product they'll be expected to shell out money for (lets not get it wrong... blizzard isn't making these expansions to be nice.. it's to make money) we ask, they give... they get money, we get enjoyment. 2 way transaction.
No one here is threatening to steal the game but that doesn't mean that there aren't people that will. Also you knew before hand that LAN would not be in the game so you knew what would be in the game before you paid for it. So you got what they said you would get.
Yes they are making expansion 2 and 3 for money but if they don't think that people will obtain then legally why bother releasing them?
It isn't you ask for something. You don't go to them and say I want this game this way and this style with these features. They say I have this game with these features, do you want it? If yes you know what you were getting. If no then you don't buy it no money lost.
LAN would be a good feature but if Blizzard doesn't want to do it then that is their choice as a business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
