EPTIt COULD (and should) have been a PR disaster, but seeing how ridiculously apathetic and generally accepting the community leaders were back when we figured all this out, I don't think any of this will change any time soon.
Claims of Chinese crack allowing lan mode - Page 15
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
GrackGyver
61 Posts
It COULD (and should) have been a PR disaster, but seeing how ridiculously apathetic and generally accepting the community leaders were back when we figured all this out, I don't think any of this will change any time soon. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:06 btlyger wrote: I agree that they want to control how their game is presented in esports, but again, is that a bad thing? We would likely have lan, region free lower latency online, and a more competitive ladder if we had it our way. I just want the best game we can possibly have. And Blizzard is not interested in delivering that, while the community has proven time and again that they can create some incredible things. So ultimately yes, I do think it's a bad thing. | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
On March 22 2011 00:56 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Are you a blizzard shill or something? Do you know how they solved "paying customers whining" in SC1 and WC3? They had a little disclaimer when you picked server, something like this: Yeah. But suddenly 12 years later the technology isnt there? No, it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with not wanting people to buy copies from cheaper regions -.- Its overall quite a joke. Man, they could just limit online sales based on region and then if someone wants to buy the game from China and pay for physical shipping, they can go ahead. Honestly, its a joke. Oh and of course the fact that they want full control of everything. They still haven't invented a way to remove all the bad routing between client and servers, no. Because there is not unlimited bandwidth there is always a delay based on the routes the packets take. The higher the load on a router, the higher the delay. Every hop, add random amount of ms. While across 1 continent peering can be quite good when everything gets clogged into a few cables underwater and no other links exist (satellite has 250ms one way due to distance + everything else) it's a bit difficult. So no, technology doesn't exist yet. On the other side, I'm not a blizzard shill, or maybe I am but not willingly. I've just learned the hard way since I've started coding in a decently sized company that users don't get too much say in what a product does in the end. It's mostly what your boss says hes willing to pay for and what he's willing to give up as a revenue source. As much as LAN and proper chat and cross-region play would be nice to have they're mostly just fluff and cut into revenue (game sales and/or development time). The longer the product is out the less they'll be likely to give in. Only options are waiting for the expansions and hope. Or having a proper protest against Blizzard, something that would hurt financially, but that's extremely unlikely to happen. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:06 btlyger wrote: I'm glad you at least pointed out the cheaper regions being the issue and not they want people to buy multiple copies. Granted that probably helps, but its not their main reason. However, I don't think them wanting to control their game is a bad thing, maybe it has some negative effects on us, but starcraft1 got out of control. All of the good players weren't playing on the network they made for the game, and instead were flocking to a network that didn't require a legal purchase of the game. Sure, most people owned sc1, but its still pretty ridiculous that they didn't have to. The fact that cross realm support isn't their is an annoyance sure, but it's really not a "joke". I hate when the player I'm facing lags because its a break in the game that usually won't occur otherwise. Yes, there are ways to make the connection between the us and asia pretty fast, but you still slow down the opponent, which if you remember was a huge problem in BW on BNET. I agree that they want to control how their game is presented in esports, but again, is that a bad thing? the reason why people played on icc was because sc1 ladder support (and evrything outside of bugfixing) was stopped before the scene even really kicked off. if the bnet in broodwar had a ladder(inlcuding support) like icc and could connect people from all over the world like icc then no one wouldve needed icc. thats the point. people didnt play on icc for pirating reasons (atleast the vast majority didnt). people played on icc cause it was the better product and beat regular bnet in all aspects for competive play. if they just make bnet the "perfect expirience" like they claimed then no one outside of a handful of guys that really cant afford the game would ever want any private servers or use them. just look at the comments, people dont want something like icc for stupid reasons. they want it because of the region lock, a true ladder that doesnt try evrything to hide your true rank/skill ,map pool and reasons like that. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:06 btlyger wrote: I agree that they want to control how their game is presented in esports, but again, is that a bad thing? It's a bad thing the minute it hinders the game. Currently it hinders the game and thus is a bad thing. | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:11 GrackGyver wrote: Blizzard wants the money from Esports, so they make Sc2 not a game that you buy and own, but a service that you buy the right to use on their property. That way, they can deny any up and coming Esports organisations that don't give them part of the revenue access to their service. It makes total sense from a purely business perspective. But is it wrong from a business perspective to want to control a pipeline that has proven to have such a huge potential? Sure, they maybe didn't care much back when they were still just a good game development company, it was free publicity. But now they have turned into a big greedy corporation and have something they know can be a cash cow. Don't expect them to react favorably towards users when they lose nothing. Now organize a proper protest and maybe after that ... | ||
|
Sein
United States1811 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:23 dakalro wrote: But is it wrong from a business perspective to want to control a pipeline that has proven to have such a huge potential? Sure, they maybe didn't care much back when they were still just a good game development company, it was free publicity. But now they have turned into a big greedy corporation and have something they know can be a cash cow. Don't expect them to react favorably towards users when they lose nothing. Now organize a proper protest and maybe after that ... So, what you're saying is that it makes sense from their perspective in maximizing their profit, at least short-term, which I would agree with. Do you like what they're doing? | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
Which means: Game Speed Set on Faster + Blizzard Lag = Normal (LAN Speed) And Game Speed Set on Normal + Blizzard Lag = SC1 East/Asia/West/Europe Speed So, technically the game is at lan speed. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:28 BlazeFury01 wrote: I think you guys are forgetting something. StarCraft 2 is a faster game then StarCraft 1. They made it a faster game because they knew that there would be no LAN. Which means: Game Speed Set on Faster + Blizzard Lag = Normal (LAN Speed) And Game Speed Set on Normal + Blizzard Lag = SC1 East/Asia/West/Europe Speed So the game technically is at lan speed. Nobody plays on normal speed outside of the bnet players on SC:BW. Everyone plays on fastest. SC2 is not technically at LAN speed. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:23 dakalro wrote: But is it wrong from a business perspective to want to control a pipeline that has proven to have such a huge potential? Sure, they maybe didn't care much back when they were still just a good game development company, it was free publicity. But now they have turned into a big greedy corporation and have something they know can be a cash cow. Don't expect them to react favorably towards users when they lose nothing. Now organize a proper protest and maybe after that ... ofc thats sadly true in todays game business. but in this case this has more to it. its not blizzard that runs esports. its not even blizzard that makes sc2 such a huge success. its the community. without people like us here on TL sc2 would have been nothing more then a sequel to " that old weird game no one cares about anymore since 2000". and if they keep acting against our needs they will have to deal with constant shit they get evrywhere (be it forums or even something like sotg), pissed customers, complaints in forums and maybe hurt the game more then they expect. you can do such stuff with a COD where the attention span of the 15 year old fanboys is goldfish like anyways and where no real community exists since evry 6 to 12 months a new game comes out . but with starcraft its a different situation. and people will bitch about it or try find ways to circumvent it forever. | ||
|
Lipski
Poland373 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:28 BlazeFury01 wrote: I think you guys are forgetting something. StarCraft 2 is a faster game then StarCraft 1. They made it a faster game because they knew that there would be no LAN. Which means: Game Speed Set on Faster + Blizzard Lag = Normal (LAN Speed) And Game Speed Set on Normal + Blizzard Lag = SC1 East/Asia/West/Europe Speed So, technically the game is at lan speed. what a perfect post to end this thread, methinks! | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
You can check out how WoW has evolved in time. It's always going the way of the majority and that is never the hardcore community. I bet nowadays the average SC2 owner can't even set up a LAN let alone ask for support for it. | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:29 goiflin wrote: Nobody plays on normal speed outside of the bnet players on SC:BW. Everyone plays on fastest. It's not technically at LAN speed. I was expecting a smart ass comment. I was referring to the normal speed on sc2 + the server lag is = to the fastest speed on SCBW battle.net. While SC2 on Faster + Server lag is = to the Lan speed of SC BW battle.net. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:06 btlyger wrote: I'm glad you at least pointed out the cheaper regions being the issue and not they want people to buy multiple copies. Granted that probably helps, but its probably more like you described it. However, I don't think them wanting to control their game is a bad thing, maybe it has some negative effects on us, but starcraft1 got out of control. All of the good players weren't playing on the network they made for the game, and instead were flocking to a network that didn't require a legal purchase of the game. Sure, most people owned sc1, but its still pretty ridiculous that they didn't have to. The fact that cross realm support isn't their is an annoyance sure, but it's really not a "joke". I hate when the player I'm facing lags because its a break in the game that usually won't occur otherwise. Yes, there are ways to make the connection between the us and asia pretty fast, but you still slow down the opponent, which if you remember was a huge problem in BW on BNET. I agree that they want to control how their game is presented in esports, but again, is that a bad thing? If I play on Europe from Korea, I will have huge delay but my opponent will not be affected. The problem with Blizzard being in control of esports is that they are completely incompetent and mired down completely in pointless bureaucracy before they can do anything about anything. On March 22 2011 01:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: I was expecting a smart ass comment. I was referring to the normal speed on sc2 + the server lag is = to the fastest speed on StarCraft Brood War. While SC2 on Faster + Server lag is = to the Lan speed of SC BW. Game speed is completely unrelated to latency... Latency in this case is how long it takes before your commands are recognized by the game | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: I was expecting a smart ass comment. I was referring to the normal speed on sc2 + the server lag is = to the fastest speed on StarCraft Brood War. While SC2 on Faster + Server lag is = to the Lan speed of SC BW. I kind of understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure if it's true. Even if there is a delay you are still issuing the commands at the same time as if there was no delay. The delay is between your action and the action taking place, so I think you still technically play the game at the same speed things are just more responsive, meaning it feels all around better in general. | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:31 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: ofc thats sadly true in todays game business. but in this case this has more to it. its not blizzard that runs esports. its not even blizzard that makes sc2 such a huge success. its the community. and if they keep acting against our needs they will have to deal with constant shit they get evrywhere (be it forums or even something like sotg), pissed customers, complaints in forums and maybe hurt the game more then they expect. you can do such stuff with a COD where the attention span of the 15 year old fanboys is goldfish like anyways and where no real community exists since evry 6 to 12 months a new game comes out . but with starcraft its a different situation. and people will bitch about it or try find ways to circumvent it forever. Yes but the community will keep running esports because it attracts viewers and that means ads and that means $$ (community wants competition, sponsors want ads). Even with current shortcomings SC2 is still successful in spinning the esport wheel and as long as people will watch streams and possibly TV in the future it's gonna keep on spinning. Am going to assume that when the amount of money involved will grow a lot more and viewers will number in the hundreds of thousands Blizzard will provide special local battle.net servers. For now every nerd knows the internet is not infallible but when the average joe starts watching things should be a bit different. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:32 BlazeFury01 wrote: I was expecting a smart ass comment. I was referring to the normal speed on sc2 + the server lag is = to the fastest speed on StarCraft Brood War. While SC2 on Faster + Server lag is = to the Lan speed of SC BW. Yeah, well, if you say something like Game Speed Set on Normal I'm going to assume you meant Normal game speed. It has nothing to do with me being a smart ass; you failed to articulate yourself correctly. Say what you actually mean next time, and don't be such a jerk when you reply. I wasn't being one. SC2+Lag =! fastest on LAN BW. There's a delay. You don't have a delay in BW LAN. | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
I was expecting a smart ass comment. I was referring to the normal speed on sc2 + the server lag is = to the fastest speed on StarCraft Brood War. While SC2 on Faster + Server lag is = to the Lan speed of SC BW. Game speed is completely unrelated to latency... Latency in this case is how long it takes before your commands are recognized by the game[/QUOTE] Jinro, you don't get what I'm saying. Blizzard sped up SC2. Movement/Unit responses/Game Play/Commands beyond brood war. So when the battle.net lag kicks in, it reduces what they enhanced thus making the game at the "Normal Speed" in which it was intended to play at. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
Blizzard sped up SC2. Movement/Unit responses/Game Play/Commands beyond brood war. So when the battle.net lag kicks in, it reduces what they enhanced thus making the game at the "Normal Speed" in which it was intended to play at. They also intended SC1 to be played on normal speed. Does that mean that playing on fastest isn't good, or balanced? Hell no! It's much better than normal speed. Imagine how cool it would be to see pros play with no delay? It'd only be better! | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
On March 22 2011 01:37 goiflin wrote: Yeah, well, if you say something like I'm going to assume you meant Normal game speed. It has nothing to do with me being a smart ass; you failed to articulate yourself correctly. Say what you actually mean next time, and don't be such a jerk when you reply. I wasn't being one. SC2+Lag =! fastest on LAN BW. There's a delay. You don't have a delay in BW LAN. You we're clearly being an asshole and I saw you as trying to be an ass as mocking my suggestion. And I was articulately correct, you we're just to dumb to decipher what I was saying. But, if I wasn't clear about what I was saying, then I apologize. | ||
| ||
