|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 22 2011 02:15 Desutroyah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 02:09 mmdmmd wrote:On March 22 2011 02:05 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
So the problem is that unit responses/commands are slower in cross-continent play in SC2 than in SC1. Much slower. This is interesting. With better internet for everyone compare to 10 years ago and a better bnet technology. The game is actually laggier? Why is this? That is a good question, some theorize its a routing issue and the diffrent servers doesnt have a good connection towards diffrent continents. Some theorize that sc2 sends more shit over the internet. I think both is probably partially true.
I thought it was pretty well established that its because SC2 runs the game as client-server-client whereas SC1 (and WC3) ran it Client-Client, so theres no middle-man, which is what causes the lag.
|
On March 22 2011 03:01 TurtlePerson2 wrote:
Imagine if this actually works. Competitions like MLG will be torn between providing the best possible experience for players and viewers or doing what Activision-Blizzard says. It will put them in an awkward position.
No, there is no awkawrd position as using this would be illegal. This isnt a 5 year old almost forgotten game (exagerating a bit ok, but it shows my point). Big Tournaments specially in USA will never use anything different that what blizzard provides.
|
On March 22 2011 03:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 02:15 Desutroyah wrote:On March 22 2011 02:09 mmdmmd wrote:On March 22 2011 02:05 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
So the problem is that unit responses/commands are slower in cross-continent play in SC2 than in SC1. Much slower. This is interesting. With better internet for everyone compare to 10 years ago and a better bnet technology. The game is actually laggier? Why is this? That is a good question, some theorize its a routing issue and the diffrent servers doesnt have a good connection towards diffrent continents. Some theorize that sc2 sends more shit over the internet. I think both is probably partially true. I thought it was pretty well established that its because SC2 runs the game as client-server-client whereas SC1 (and WC3) ran it Client-Client, so theres no middle-man, which is what causes the lag.
Yep it's client-client but with a server in the middle that it all has to go through slowing shit down. Worst possible set up for paying customers but most secure with least cost (not actually hosting servers). If any 3rd party server goes up having client-client it will fucking destroy bnet 2.0 in hours, much like ICCUP did to bnet 1.0. It's a big IF that blizzard betted on (no crack to bnet 2.0).
In actually if an ICCUP like server or LAN mode + hamachi servers come out, death knell for BNET 2.0 by anyone who likes low latency.
If it was normal client-server it would actually decrease latency much like HoN, Dota 2 (will have).
Basically Battle.net 2.0 is the worst possible settup for latency because it's still peer 2 peer but with a middle man it all goes through first.
For Example: HON has normal client-server and hosts all the dedicated servers themselves. This gives really good latency and even "acceptable" EU-NA latency. Because of this service any third party lan modes or ded servers hosted in Russia would never become popular. THey offer the best possible service to customers.
Blizzard opted to give the worst possible service to customers and hope for a monopoly. Lan Crack would open the floodgates for BNET 2.0 to become a thing of the past. Which hopefully happens.
The second a lan mode comes out, it's over. Hamachi networks, ICCUP, GARENA, can all host SC2 without worry of the legality since it's the end users they connect together.
|
On March 22 2011 03:07 Matkap wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 03:01 TurtlePerson2 wrote:
Imagine if this actually works. Competitions like MLG will be torn between providing the best possible experience for players and viewers or doing what Activision-Blizzard says. It will put them in an awkward position. No, there is no awkawrd position as using this would be illegal. This isnt a 5 year old almost forgotten game (exagerating a bit ok, but it shows my point). Big Tournaments specially in USA will never use anything different that what blizzard provides.
Blizzard: You can't run those modified clients at your tournament.
Tournament: Why not?
B: They violate the terms set out in the EULA.
T: But we're creating a functionality that the unmodified game does not allow us to do, i.e. play in a lag free environment without risk of disconnection.
B: Too bad.
T: Well, could you add in your own LAN mode for us, then?
B: No.
T: Then how are we supposed to get LAN conditions for our players?
B: You don't need LAN, you have battle.net 2.0.
Would be such a lovely PR move by Blizzard.
|
So, reading through all 19 pages and I still don't know if this has been confirmed (didnt read thoroughly though). Has it been confirmed?
|
On March 22 2011 03:16 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 03:07 Matkap wrote:On March 22 2011 03:01 TurtlePerson2 wrote:
Imagine if this actually works. Competitions like MLG will be torn between providing the best possible experience for players and viewers or doing what Activision-Blizzard says. It will put them in an awkward position. No, there is no awkawrd position as using this would be illegal. This isnt a 5 year old almost forgotten game (exagerating a bit ok, but it shows my point). Big Tournaments specially in USA will never use anything different that what blizzard provides. Blizzard: You can't run those modified clients at your tournament. Tournament: Why not? B: They violate the terms set out in the EULA. T: But we're creating a functionality that the unmodified game does not allow us to do, i.e. play in a lag free environment without risk of disconnection. B: Too bad. T: Well, could you add in your own LAN mode for us, then? B: No. T: Then how are we supposed to get LAN conditions for our players? B: You don't need LAN, you have battle.net 2.0. Would be such a lovely PR move by Blizzard.
xD Make love to me please.
On March 22 2011 03:17 never_toss wrote:
So, reading through all 19 pages and I still don't know if this has been confirmed (didnt read thoroughly though). Has it been confirmed?
Yea I'm curious, hopefully this does force a move on Blizzard towards some sort of LAN. As of now the website in OP seems to be down.
|
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes!
|
yeah wondering how blizz response will look like.
'We didnt add lan support because...ummm...ooom.... Take a while and think: Do you Really want Lan support?"
Also its funny how one asian guy can make so much people happy , like blizz couldnt do this earlier.
|
On March 22 2011 03:17 never_toss wrote:
So, reading through all 19 pages and I still don't know if this has been confirmed (didnt read thoroughly though). Has it been confirmed?
It was because some guy was derailing the thread spewing shit.
OT:
I think we will just have to wait. I was patiently waiting for the cracked beta when SC2 was still in beta stage and the wait was worth it back then :p
On March 22 2011 03:25 SDream wrote:
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes!
They can't sue chinese dudes .. Well from my understanding. There are so many ripped-off products from westered companies that has been modified by china to be like the real thing (Car models for example).
|
I think it's pretty important that more tournaments give blizzard the middle finger on this issue. Take wow for example, horrible community and typically the only way things get changed is if the unreasonable majority complains enough.
LAN is more important than small PvE changes though.
|
On March 22 2011 03:16 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 03:07 Matkap wrote:On March 22 2011 03:01 TurtlePerson2 wrote:
Imagine if this actually works. Competitions like MLG will be torn between providing the best possible experience for players and viewers or doing what Activision-Blizzard says. It will put them in an awkward position. No, there is no awkawrd position as using this would be illegal. This isnt a 5 year old almost forgotten game (exagerating a bit ok, but it shows my point). Big Tournaments specially in USA will never use anything different that what blizzard provides. Blizzard: You can't run those modified clients at your tournament. Tournament: Why not? B: They violate the terms set out in the EULA. T: But we're creating a functionality that the unmodified game does not allow us to do, i.e. play in a lag free environment without risk of disconnection. B: Too bad. T: Well, could you add in your own LAN mode for us, then? B: No. T: Then how are we supposed to get LAN conditions for our players? B: You don't need LAN, you have battle.net 2.0. Would be such a lovely PR move by Blizzard.
without the risk of a disconnection? you mean less risk right?
You can hope all you want, but It amazes me if people really think something like this would happen, specially in USA.
|
On March 22 2011 03:25 SDream wrote:
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes!
just like they can sue all the 2 million people who pirated single player.
Once it's out, it's out.
|
On March 22 2011 03:25 SDream wrote:
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes!
They can send C&D's, but they can't actually sue anyone in china for trademark infringement.
Also, I wish that they would release language packs for the game  That'd be fun, to replay the campaign in a different language.
|
On March 22 2011 03:25 SDream wrote:
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes!
lol how is blizzard going to sue some obscure Chinese programmer?
Depending on the popularity of this or similar future clients it absolutely will at the very least force blizzard to rethink their position on LAN, it all depends on what their numbers people figure out.
|
On March 22 2011 03:26 aimaimaim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 03:17 never_toss wrote:
So, reading through all 19 pages and I still don't know if this has been confirmed (didnt read thoroughly though). Has it been confirmed? It was because some guy was derailing the thread spewing shit. OT: I think we will just have to wait. I was patiently waiting for the cracked beta when SC2 was still in beta stage and the wait was worth it back then :p Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 03:25 SDream wrote:
This won't "force" Blizzard to do anything other than sue whoever made it maybe.
In the same way that people modifying the game files to play in English have not "forced" Blizzard to offer a language pack.
So cut your hopes! They can't sue chinese dudes .. Well from my understanding. There are so many ripped-off products from westered companies that has been modified by china to be like the real thing (Car models for example).
That's the question I have. The OP mentions Taiwan specifically, but I heard mentions of the Chinese (probably PRoC). If it's the former, Blizzard's fine, if the latter, there's no recourse for Blizzard. Cool, let's sue Chinese nationals. Good luck with that.
It should be noted: no major tournaments are going to give Blizzard the finger on this. MLG, GSL, TSL, NASL: they're going to do what Blizzard allows them to do and nothing more. The reason for this? They're major organizations. They have something *major* to lose.
What this *does* mean, however, is that those with less to lose, such as the sort of servers mentioned above - Hamachi, what have you - will grow. The proliferation of this means that SC2 isn't just restricted to large BW tournaments, but also to the sort of gigantic underground scene that exists in (well, BW, but also) TF2. And... it's gonna be difficult for Blizzard to stop that.
This is not a normative judgment or an endorsement of piracy. Truth be told, I'm genuinely conflicted. While I am seriously annoyed by all manner of DRM bullshit, I cannot consider piracy of this new a game remotely close to good. Very torn.
If the cat's not yet out of the bag, it soon will be. Blizzard either adapts, sees their work consumed by piracy, or launch a futile crusade against pirates.
Hopefully they make the right choice.
|
The link now throws a 404 error. Blizzard already working on it?
|
On March 22 2011 02:58 aimaimaim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 02:51 veE wrote:
Honestly who cares... battlenet is strong enough to support us anyway... I havent seen many problems with live tourneys and events or online ones.... why fix something that isnt broken? Boxer Disconnecting During TSL?
comments like these are kinda dumb. sure I am up for lans and all but in order for TSL to be LAN, boxer and his opponent would have had to meet up and some pc bang or some thing. so without online matches, boxer n his opponent may not have even played -_-
disconnects at GSLs or tourneys that play locally are what could have been prevented with lan.
|
Even if there was LAN, TSL would be played through Bnet anyways, so dumb argument.
|
On March 22 2011 04:08 dkim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 02:58 aimaimaim wrote:On March 22 2011 02:51 veE wrote:
Honestly who cares... battlenet is strong enough to support us anyway... I havent seen many problems with live tourneys and events or online ones.... why fix something that isnt broken? Boxer Disconnecting During TSL? comments like these are kinda dumb. sure I am up for lans and all but in order for TSL to be LAN, boxer and his opponent would have had to meet up and some pc bang or some thing. so without online matches, boxer n his opponent may not have even played -_- disconnects at GSLs or tourneys that play locally are what could have been prevented with lan.
On March 22 2011 04:11 Essentia wrote:
Even if there was LAN, TSL would be played through Bnet anyways, so dumb argument.
For the tenth time a LAN setting would allow the use of hamachi or other p2p program to bypass battle.net and reduce ping between players. Would that get rid of all connection problems? No, but it would get rid of some of them and would improve unit response time for both players.
|
On March 22 2011 04:08 dkim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 02:58 aimaimaim wrote:On March 22 2011 02:51 veE wrote:
Honestly who cares... battlenet is strong enough to support us anyway... I havent seen many problems with live tourneys and events or online ones.... why fix something that isnt broken? Boxer Disconnecting During TSL? comments like these are kinda dumb. sure I am up for lans and all but in order for TSL to be LAN, boxer and his opponent would have had to meet up and some pc bang or some thing. so without online matches, boxer n his opponent may not have even played -_- disconnects at GSLs or tourneys that play locally are what could have been prevented with lan.
Boxer was complaining after the games on 2 SEC DELAY .
If u don't know how much that is then the one dumb is u.
How you wan't to participate in tournaments that are worth $10k++ with that huge latency?
Blizzard is crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
