| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On March 22 2011 04:30 dacthehork wrote: Stop being stupid, on iccup you could play SC:BW with koreans with a little lag, it was never that bad, about equal to SC2 same continent lag. Furthermore, just because you had dial-up when SC:BW was big doesn't mean cross-continent play is impossible. | ||
|
LoliKuma
United States237 Posts
Would be really interesting if this works, since initially Blizzard answered with "oh there is LAN but you have to log into Bnet 2.0 to be able to switch to LAN" to "there isn't going to be lan, LOOK AT THIS SHINY NEW INTERFACE SO WE CAN MAKE YOU FORGET ABOUT LAN". | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
... god i hope it never happens. It would be horrible for me and most people here, i am sure, even if you don't realize it now. | ||
|
mmdmmd
722 Posts
On March 22 2011 04:41 Gotmog wrote: People really can't see anything "bad" about having LAN feature in sc2 ? ... god i hope it never happens. It would be horrible for me and most people here, i am sure, even if you don't realize it now. Interesting. Can you explain why in Serbia it will be horrible for you and your friends if SC2 has LAN? | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
Only problem I see is, you couldn't use LAN in any tournament anyway, because Blizzard would sue your pants off or something. (i'm assuming) And in-tournament play was the main reason most people had for wanting LAN. | ||
|
dkim
United States255 Posts
On March 22 2011 04:20 Gheed wrote: http://intl.garena.com/~client/ https://secure.logmein.com/products/hamachi2/ http://tunngle.en.softonic.com/ You are the one who needs to "learn about interwebz more". vlan isn't the same thing. lan = LOCAL area network. TSL GAMES ARE NOT PLAYED LOCALLY so that brings to there is no use for lan but VLAN to this respect. too many people are thinking lan is a fix to cross server lag, that is not lan. | ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
DirtYLOu
575 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:01 dkim wrote: vlan isn't the same thing. lan = LOCAL area network. TSL GAMES ARE NOT PLAYED LOCALLY so that brings to there is no use for lan but VLAN to this respect. too many people are thinking lan is a fix to cross server lag, that is not lan. EXACLTY. THATS WHY WE NEED LAN SUPPORT SO WE CAN MAKE CROSS REGION be 1 PING !!!@!@!!@!@#!#$!#!$!$!$$ User was warned for this post | ||
|
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:03 DirtYLOu wrote: EXACLTY. THATS WHY WE NEED LAN SUPPORT SO WE CAN MAKE CROSS REGION be 1 PING !!!@!@!!@!@#!#$!#!$!$!$$ You can't make cross region 1 ping. Light can travel only so fast, and that doesn't even count delays due to lack of infrastructure. | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
Traditionally LAN modes in blizz games have tick/update rates of 50-100ms. Meaning that you can actually take advantage of fast internet. BNET modes usually have 250ms updates so you're stuck with decent lag. With bnet 2.0 it seems your connection also goes through bnet 2.0 servers before hitting the other client, meaning even more latency above that. Whereas with iccup/LC/Garena etc it's directly with the other plays, and with 100ms or less time between updates. So a lan mode for SC2 would basically lower latency a ton, especially for cross server play. Even though it still goes across the ocean, it will update much earlier and also not have to go through bnet 2.0 servers first. I have no idea what the exact times would look like but on simple guestimation avg latency for lan connect US/KOR 200-300ms with BNET 2.0 400-750ms Even on USA servers, playing with a friend in the same city.. could be 300ms lag versus 30ms lag. | ||
|
KentHenry
United States260 Posts
You can't make cross region 1 ping. Light can travel only so fast, and that doesn't even count delays due to lack of infrastructure. Light can circumnavigate around the world approximately 7.5 times in one second, just wanted to throw that out there. lol | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
Important part is routing since I actually think that somehow Eastern Europe has a better route to Korea than most of the western part of it. Outside of actual overloads I never had issues with watching GSL even on my company's shit connection. On March 22 2011 05:14 KentHenry wrote: Light can circumnavigate around the world approximately 7.5 times in one second, just wanted to throw that out there. lol Information can circumnavigate about 5 times in a second, if you have a straight cable around the equator. 200ms. And straight cable never happens, or actual P2P since the internet is packet switched not circuit switched. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Who knows exactly how this lan mode works, I read somewhere it was actually an emulated bnet 2.0 server though and not lan latency which wouldn't impact latency for the time being. The crack itself would be huge though. Yes. Crack is a pretty bad term people have used for this. This is a server emulator, and the current version (assuming it works), seems to support 2 clients including the host. One of the players acts as a server as well as a player, and the other would act just as a player. The lag would be lowered though compared to a conventional battle.net 2.0 connection because the server and player is the same person, meaning the step from player1->server->player2 is essentially the same as player1->player2. Assuming negligible time to process between host host's player module and host's server module, it makes it so that the lag/latency for the game will be cut in half. One thing that you mention that's very likely correct though, is that the forced latency (250ms for taiwan I think?) is likely still in place. I am not too sure exactly how forced latency's mechanics work,might want someone else (R1CH??) to explain if necessary. Over time though, it will be possible for that 250ms forced latency to be removed— it's even possible it was removed already, it's hard to say. | ||
|
mmdmmd
722 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:14 KentHenry wrote: Light can circumnavigate around the world approximately 7.5 times in one second, just wanted to throw that out there. lol Also data signal doesn't travel at the speed of light. It's 1/3 for copper wire. | ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
I would be wary of using any sort of early LAN crack at this stage. I'm sure there are tons of subtle intricacies in how Blizzard treats things like near-simultaneous events and commands server-side that whoever developed this crack might not have up to competition standards. Regardless, I'm eagerly looking forward to when we can play SC2 in LAN latency. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Please the reason why LAN mode is so important is the following. Traditionally LAN modes in blizz games have tick/update rates of 50-100ms. Meaning that you can actually take advantage of fast internet. BNET modes usually have 250ms updates so you're stuck with decent lag. With bnet 2.0 it seems your connection also goes through bnet 2.0 servers before hitting the other client, meaning even more latency above that. Whereas with iccup/LC/Garena etc it's directly with the other plays, and with 100ms or less time between updates. So a lan mode for SC2 would basically lower latency a ton, especially for cross server play. Even though it still goes across the ocean, it will update much earlier and also not have to go through bnet 2.0 servers first. I have no idea what the exact times would look like but on simple guestimation avg latency for lan connect US/KOR 200-300ms with BNET 2.0 400-750ms Even on USA servers, playing with a friend in the same city.. could be 300ms lag versus 30ms lag. Well it sounds like you attempt to emulate a b.net server... so it's not really lan. More like a private server. If this is true, I find it funny this coincides with China's launch of the game. Inside job? | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:19 Xapti wrote: Yes. Crack is a pretty bad term people have used for this. This is a server emulator, and the current version (assuming it works), seems to support 2 clients including the host. One of the players acts as a server as well as a player, and the other would act just as a player. The lag would be lowered though compared to a conventional battle.net 2.0 connection because the server and player is the same person, meaning the step from player1->server->player2 is essentially the same as player1->player2. One thing that you mention that's very likely correct though, is that the forced latency (250ms for taiwan I think?) is likely still in place. I am not too sure exactly how forced latency's mechanics work,might want someone else (R1CH??) to explain if necessary. Over time though, it will be possible for that 250ms forced latency to be removed— it's even possible it was removed already, it's hard to say. ah damn that sucks it's not actually lan but will still be lower latency than bnet 2.0. Hopefully lan comes next so we can see garena etc pick up sc2. It's probably actually better for pro teams / practice houses to use a version like this as you still get the normal SC2 delay but no worry about lagspikes etc. | ||
|
t3tsubo
Canada682 Posts
Most people clicking through this thread don't want to read a debate on pros and cons of having LAN in bnet 2.0, they just want to know if this workaround works | ||
|
rebuffering
Canada2436 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On March 22 2011 05:25 t3tsubo wrote: Can someone please get R1CH on this, then lock this thread until he comes up with a post explaining how it works and a DL link for EU/US/KR clients? Most people clicking through this thread don't want to read a debate on pros and cons of having LAN in bnet 2.0, they just want to know if this workaround works I agree with this, but we could also just attach a TL:DR that says "LANs would fix a lot of tournament problems, but not all of them." | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Monday Night Weeklies
GSL
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
