|
On March 21 2011 23:47 darkevilxe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. in professional tournaments now, playing on bnet makes it so players have inconsistent and non-similar latencies, creating a variable that no matter how small still affects gameplay in a structured environment
depends which pro tourney your refering to. Something like the TSL really needs LAN as opposed to something like GSL, MLG and IEM where its probably like 1~0 ms. But i don't think that warrants LAN play to the public, just restricting it to pro tourneys.
|
On March 21 2011 15:28 DirtYLOu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 15:26 JayDee_ wrote:On March 21 2011 15:22 DirtYLOu wrote:On March 21 2011 15:20 JayDee_ wrote:
Don't tell Kespa! What does kespa have to do with anything ? T_T? By denying LAN and forcing BNet play, Blizzard is able to control who gets to run tournaments. Then we should tell Kespa about it. So they can buy it, and crack it even better. I would pay Kespa for THEIR version of SC2 even $100 ///
Me too friend, just imagine how well ladder would be kept up to date, kespa maps, kespa seasons. Dare to dream,
Never taking anything away from blizzard, they did a unreal job creating this game, but I get a feeling the post creation management of it would be better suited for an organization that loves the game, and specifically loves the game as an esport.
|
On March 21 2011 23:49 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. At no cost. Blizzard already has the LAN client. It probably wouldn't take more than a week of work to implement it in the actual game client.
By costing "alot" I believe he means the potential sales lost to pirates, which is likely a very minuscule number, since anyone who hasn't bought the game yet clearly isn't going to.
|
On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about.
Because internet connection speed is not as constant as a dedicated LAN. Ping varies and you also have to consider the time of the day.
Example: when the Japan Quake/Nuclear Problem hit the main stream news, everyone's internet was slower due to the amount of traffic online. It sucks to have a important match under these times. Although the lag might not be noticeable by normal players. It might effect Pros.
|
How would they be able to ban anyone that is using this LAN crack.
1. You do not crack the version you access battle.net with.
2. Cracked version should not be allowed internet access, which would be pretty moronic.
3. The cracked version cannot communicate your account data as you do not enter it.
???
|
An illegal crack will achieve absolutely nothing for the community. But it would be nice if Blizzard decide to give tournaments lan support, it would solve some problems.
|
On March 21 2011 23:50 jmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 15:28 DirtYLOu wrote:On March 21 2011 15:26 JayDee_ wrote:On March 21 2011 15:22 DirtYLOu wrote:On March 21 2011 15:20 JayDee_ wrote:
Don't tell Kespa! What does kespa have to do with anything ? T_T? By denying LAN and forcing BNet play, Blizzard is able to control who gets to run tournaments. Then we should tell Kespa about it. So they can buy it, and crack it even better. I would pay Kespa for THEIR version of SC2 even $100 /// Me too friend, just imagine how well ladder would be kept up to date, kespa maps, kespa seasons. Dare to dream, Never taking anything away from blizzard, they did a unreal job creating this game, but I get a feeling the post creation management of it would be better suited for an organization that loves the game, and specifically loves the game as an esport.
thats the problem today.the suits decide over stuff.
i doubt any game dev would suddenly say " hey! lets make it impossible that someone from eu can play with someone in us! and lets make ridiculous statements about how the technology just isnt there yet!" .
|
On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about.
Cross server play isn't possible because of how they price things differently aroun d the world.
In LA they pay a subscription, in the UK the game costs slightly more (my EU copy cost about £3 more) than in US, and those are only the ones i know. If you could play on any server then you could buy the cheapest copy and use that to play on the best server.
The world works differently to how it did when BW came out, the internet even more so. Because of the nature of sc2 being based mainly around 1v1 or small team games, unlike FPS you don't need your own clan server or whatever to play on, therefore you don't need to be able to access a server half way across the world to play with your team mates or whatever. You can buy an extra copy of course, I don't see how anyone who has the desire to need an extra copy has a hard time getting one, and the only people who care about playing "on the best server" are the ones who are serious about the game and therefore are likely to shell out the money anyways.
|
On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about.
LAN would help out with the eSports scene by allowing tournaments to be run much more smoothly with increased stability and better ping. Smaller tournaments would especially benefit because Blizzard can't pay attention to every single small tournaments when deciding to do maintenance or patching and it would not be pleasant to have bnet go down in the middle of your tournament. You also don't have to worry about internet in your neighborhood going down.
|
On March 21 2011 23:50 frodoguy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:47 darkevilxe wrote:On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. in professional tournaments now, playing on bnet makes it so players have inconsistent and non-similar latencies, creating a variable that no matter how small still affects gameplay in a structured environment depends which pro tourney your refering to. Something like the TSL really needs LAN as opposed to something like GSL, MLG and IEM where its probably like 1~0 ms. But i don't think that warrants LAN play to the public, just restricting it to pro tourneys.
How is MLG, GSL and IEM 1ms? They have around ~50ms because every game played on battle.net goes through bnet servers.
|
id rather have those in game variables then having someone with alot of lan experience and access to lans dominate because they are used to playing with no delay even if similar in skill just having the practic on lan gives them an unfair advantage ,
where as a guy like me would have no chance
having to deal with a big delay and no access to lans inmy area
sorry just my thoughts.
|
On March 21 2011 23:53 enCore- wrote:
How would they be able to ban anyone that is using this LAN crack.
1. You do not crack the version you access battle.net with.
2. Cracked version should not be allowed internet access, which would be pretty moronic.
3. The cracked version cannot communicate your account data as you do not enter it.
???
Unless they add it to the warden's definition list (and you're running it at the same time as SC2), or if they install illegal malware without your knowledge, then there is no way that they can find out you have it.
|
On March 21 2011 23:53 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. Cross server play isn't possible because of how they price things differently aroun d the world. In LA they pay a subscription, in the UK the game costs slightly more (my EU copy cost about £3 more) than in US, and those are only the ones i know. If you could play on any server then you could buy the cheapest copy and use that to play on the best server.
so a 5$ difference (which is less difference then i saw in stores here which sold it at evrything between 39€ and 55€) which usually gets negated by shipping costs should be the reason why a HUGE IMPORTANT feature doesnt get in the game? i doubt that
|
On March 21 2011 23:54 DrGreen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:50 frodoguy wrote:On March 21 2011 23:47 darkevilxe wrote:On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. in professional tournaments now, playing on bnet makes it so players have inconsistent and non-similar latencies, creating a variable that no matter how small still affects gameplay in a structured environment depends which pro tourney your refering to. Something like the TSL really needs LAN as opposed to something like GSL, MLG and IEM where its probably like 1~0 ms. But i don't think that warrants LAN play to the public, just restricting it to pro tourneys. How is MLG, GSL and IEM 1ms? They have around ~50ms because every game played on battle.net goes through bnet servers.
Much higher than 50, it's about 150ms like War3. Go play single player, the unit response is insanely fast, it feels like a different game entirely. With LAN we would be incredibly close to that. Right now we play in a forced high latency just the way we did in BW before LAN hack
|
On March 21 2011 23:55 goiflin wrote:
Unless they add it to the warden's definition list (and you're running it at the same time as SC2), or if they install illegal malware without your knowledge, then there is no way that they can find out you have it.
Please read point 2. and 3. again. Obviously blizzard is going to install malware on your computer. God -.-
|
On March 21 2011 23:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:53 emythrel wrote:On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. Cross server play isn't possible because of how they price things differently aroun d the world. In LA they pay a subscription, in the UK the game costs slightly more (my EU copy cost about £3 more) than in US, and those are only the ones i know. If you could play on any server then you could buy the cheapest copy and use that to play on the best server. so a 5$ difference (which is less difference then i saw in stores here which sold it at evrything between 39€ and 55€) which usually gets negated by shipping costs should be the reason why a HUGE IMPORTANT feature doesnt get in the game? i doubt that
It's the reason nintendo just shafted everyone making the 3DS region locked. and a handheld console which is likely to be taken all over the place to be locked out is just baffling. But it's because of the online store and the fact when game companies release a game or technology they take the dollar pirce $50.. and knock the dollar sign off and add the pound sign.. so we pay £50 for your $50 item regardless of current currency exchange rates. (edit... can't find the Euro sign on my keyboard.. hence the dollar.. same principle applies)
|
On March 21 2011 23:57 enCore- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:55 goiflin wrote:
Unless they add it to the warden's definition list (and you're running it at the same time as SC2), or if they install illegal malware without your knowledge, then there is no way that they can find out you have it. Please read point 2. and 3. again. Obviously blizzard is going to install malware on your computer. God -.-
I was confirming what you were saying. There would be now way to find out if you're doing this in the first place. Not sure why you're telling me to re-read what you said, you asked if there was any way for blizz to detect the cracked version. I was stating the ways that they could do it.
Also, they won't install malware to find if you're playing on a private server. They would have done that with WoW, and they didn't, at least afaik. I had a private server setup on my computer at the same time as a legit version of WoW, and nothing happened to my account.
|
On March 22 2011 00:02 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:57 enCore- wrote:On March 21 2011 23:55 goiflin wrote:
Unless they add it to the warden's definition list (and you're running it at the same time as SC2), or if they install illegal malware without your knowledge, then there is no way that they can find out you have it. Please read point 2. and 3. again. Obviously blizzard is going to install malware on your computer. God -.- I was confirming what you were saying. There would be now way to find out if you're doing this in the first place. Not sure why you're telling me to re-read what you said, you asked if there was any way for blizz to detect the cracked version. I was stating the ways that they could do it. Also, they won't install malware to find if you're playing on a private server. They would have done that with WoW, and they didn't, at least afaik. I had a private server setup on my computer at the same time as a legit version of WoW, and nothing happened to my account.
To be fair, people fucking bot in WoW and nothing happens to their account.
|
On March 22 2011 00:02 goiflin wrote:
I was confirming what you were saying. There would be now way to find out if you're doing this in the first place. Not sure why you're telling me to re-read what you said, you asked if there was any way for blizz to detect the cracked version. I was stating the ways that they could do it.
Also, they won't install malware to find if you're playing on a private server. They would have done that with WoW, and they didn't, at least afaik. I had a private server setup on my computer at the same time as a legit version of WoW, and nothing happened to my account.
I was confused by your phrasing.
|
On March 21 2011 23:53 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:45 frodoguy wrote:
What's wrong with what we have now? Its not like it's inconvenient when we play the game online on bnet, cause it satisfies us with the necessities. Sure, we could have LAN, but at what cost? We don't need it, and it'll cost blizz alot. Now if this was about the absence of cross-server bnet, then i think it's worth ranting about. Cross server play isn't possible because of how they price things differently aroun d the world. In LA they pay a subscription, in the UK the game costs slightly more (my EU copy cost about £3 more) than in US, and those are only the ones i know. If you could play on any server then you could buy the cheapest copy and use that to play on the best server. The world works differently to how it did when BW came out, the internet even more so. Because of the nature of sc2 being based mainly around 1v1 or small team games, unlike FPS you don't need your own clan server or whatever to play on, therefore you don't need to be able to access a server half way across the world to play with your team mates or whatever. You can buy an extra copy of course, I don't see how anyone who has the desire to need an extra copy has a hard time getting one, and the only people who care about playing "on the best server" are the ones who are serious about the game and therefore are likely to shell out the money anyways.
BW was priced differently around the world, yet it allowed cross-region play?
I believe Blizzard's official reason for the lack of cross-region play was "the current technology doesn't support cross-region", which I frankly don't buy at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
