|
On March 22 2011 00:03 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:02 goiflin wrote: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.
Because they've got one poor code-monkey working on warden definitions, and they pay him 10$ an hour to do his job.
He probably bots himself to make extra cash 
On March 22 2011 00:04 enCore- wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh, alrighty then.
|
On March 22 2011 00:00 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 23:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: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)
are you sure its because of that? really imported games are usually way more expensive even if they are cheaper where you buy it. but i dont know shit about the 3ds or console business overall so yeah...
i can imagine reasons for region locking on a console stuff since it affects ALL games and sometimes versions are very different.
but region locking within a game and esp in starcraft (where it also affects a way bigger % of the users) is a different thing imo.
|
On March 22 2011 00:04 Sein 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. 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.
Technology going backwards, dude!
So did any1 checked this crack if it works?
|
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode..
|
On March 22 2011 00:06 strength wrote:
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode..
Play WC3 without LC and then play it with LC. You'll see a massive difference.
Or, for that matter, play counter strike with 250ms, then play it over LAN.
|
On March 22 2011 00:09 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:06 strength wrote:
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode.. Play WC3 without LC and then play it with LC. You'll see a massive difference. Or, for that matter, play counter strike with 250ms, then play it over LAN.
Better comparison, play the SC2 campaign for a day and then try the multiplayer. Then you definitely notice the delay (else you just get used to it).
|
On March 22 2011 00:10 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:09 goiflin wrote:On March 22 2011 00:06 strength wrote:
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode.. Play WC3 without LC and then play it with LC. You'll see a massive difference. Or, for that matter, play counter strike with 250ms, then play it over LAN. Better comparison, play the SC2 campaign for a day and then try the multiplayer. Then you definitely notice the delay (else you just get used to it).
But nothing is more extreme than playing CS with 250ms and then with 0ms.
I reckon I wouldn't be able to get a headshot at 250ms.
But SC2 is a better comparison, because we're talking about that game specifically!
|
On March 22 2011 00:09 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:06 strength wrote:
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode.. Play WC3 without LC and then play it with LC. You'll see a massive difference. Or, for that matter, play counter strike with 250ms, then play it over LAN.
not a good comparison tbh, cs even is almost unplayable with 100~150 ms
|
On March 22 2011 00:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:00 Gingerninja wrote:On March 21 2011 23:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: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) are you sure its because of that? really imported games are usually way more expensive even if they are cheaper where you buy it. but i dont know shit about the 3ds or console business overall so yeah... i can imagine reasons for region locking on a console stuff since it affects ALL games and sometimes versions are very different. but region locking within a game and esp in starcraft (where it also affects a way bigger % of the users) is a different thing imo.
They haven't said as much but it's because of the online store "so they can tailor it to regions specific needs" ie charge you out the asshole for something you could have got cheaper elsewhere. Ask EA why the USA got Rock Band for $175 all in.. and Britain's was £175.. and I quote.. " Rock Band, including game and three peripherals, costs just over £85 in the US. That's just under £100 cheaper than the equivalent products in the UK."
at the time it was like $1.90 to £1 which was high.. as its usually $1.50 - $1.60 ish, but even then, talk about getting your pants pulled down.
Sorry wandered off-topic. but that's usually the reason for the region lock, but considering we all know asia pays different because of internet cafe set up etc, I don't get why it's an issue. Apart from server load.. at a push.
|
On March 22 2011 00:15 nicotn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:09 goiflin wrote:On March 22 2011 00:06 strength wrote:
I dont even think that the bnet lag is that horrible like it was in bw.. i dont think there is a need for a LAN mode.. Play WC3 without LC and then play it with LC. You'll see a massive difference. Or, for that matter, play counter strike with 250ms, then play it over LAN. not a good comparison tbh, cs even is almost unplayable with 100~150 ms
Well, I'm sure 250ms versus 1ms would seem unplayable to higher calibre players in SC2
|
On March 21 2011 23:52 mmdmmd wrote:
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Now really, get serious!
|
I don't bother to test it but a friend of mine tried the crack and said it indeed worked.
He told me :1.For some reason it's incredibly laggy. 2. You can only play 1on1. 3. You can chat with each other in the game by text.
|
On March 21 2011 23:08 goiflin 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. 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.
What's the point of playing in the same sc2 region version though if the ping is meant to be normalize between continents?
Sometimes I just can't understand blizzard lolz.
|
|
|
In Hongkong... not everyone's. I think it's fairly understandable there was lag in this case.. the eastern part of Japan has had rolling blackouts for a week following, let alone worry about internet.
|
On March 22 2011 00:35 Gingerninja wrote:In Hongkong...
Example of how internet can be effected whereas LAN will be fine.
Not talking about internet about a specific country
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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 are either an idiot or you think blizzard are even bigger idiots than they have at times shown themselves to be. Artifically adding ping to LAN.....?
|
Cross region play isn't supported because according to their internal standards they can't provide a decent quality of play due to 1 player getting shafted on the latency. And the technology to allow both to have even latencies or low enough latencies doesn't exist yet.
If they opened up cross-realm they'd have all the paying customers trying it and whining. If they made it hard to enable, people would mess it up and complain again. This way it's better for them that they remove a source of complaints (why is my game so slow) and gain more money from hardcore players.
I mean would you play CS on a server with 15 ms or on one with 215ms? Transoceanic cables do that to latency.
As for WoW botters, sure, they bot to their heart's content until the ban waves come, and then thousands of accounts get banned. It is a better strategy compared to banning as soon as you have proof someone is cheating. If you ban immediately you force bot makers to accelerate development knowing well that they'll always find a way to get out a new bot asap. If you wait and store data for all accounts that cheat over 1 year the bot devs will have little incentive to change hiding techniques, you can catch a lot more cheaters with a lot less effort. Plus if I'd make a bot that worked for half a year without a problem I'd have a really hard time getting back into developing for it again, getting to know the code again, why I did certain things etc.
The less they change warden and the less they ban the slower they force bot development.
|
On March 22 2011 00:39 Liquid`Jinro 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 are either an idiot or you think blizzard are even bigger idiots than they have at times shown themselves to be. Artifically adding ping to LAN.....?
Why not? they already add it to battle.net. I'm assuming they have a good reason for it, either the fact that there's a huge difference between 10ms and 150 ms but not as big between 135ms and 275 ms in the way the game works or because it's some sort of human reaction buffer.
|
I would try it on virtualpc but link is down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
462
EPT
