|
On April 09 2012 01:18 Jackle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:09 axellerate wrote:
This isn't a solution with a game like starcraft 2. The issue is that many strategies revolved around your oppenent having no idea what your doing, like cloaked banshees. If the guy sees your banshees, and the game drops. Well, now your oppenent has an upper hand when the game is continued back from the previous saved point. I'm pretty sure you guys understand what I mean here.
Such information with builds like cloaked banshees, dts, all ins or whatever would mean that they're effectively soiled. Save points are just a back-up plan for massive server failures. A reconnection feature is the more important one, one that many of Blizzards competiting RTS games have already implemented. Heroes of Newerth, Dota2, and League all have reconnection features. Pausing when someone disconnects, and letting them reconnect to miss maybe a few seconds of game-time. So many people were dismissing the reconnect feature during the beta, "Oh we don't need reconnect, if someone disconnects in SC2 the game is already over." Well that's why you use it in combination with that nifty feature called pause, which referees can do once a player is lagging out. As a community we must stop pushing for LAN, something Blizzard will never implement in a million years. We should rather push for something many of Blizzards competiting games have already implemented, reconnection feature.
"As a community we must stop pushing for LAN"
No, no, no a million times no.
How about as a paying and supporting customer? They're who they are because of us, not them. Is it too much to ask for a needed feature?
Saved game states are stupid.
A) strategies will be reformed during the interval of time because of the nature of sc2.
B) Certain strats will be hard countered and the game will severely favor the other player.
C) The flow of the game will be interupted severely. Lots of people dislike even pauses for a few seconds because of this reason.
D) This is an Esport, and because of the above reasons, ALL factors MUST be balanced across the board because peoples money is on the line.
|
Yeah if you have a third-party-guy, posessing the full-game-state, it's easier.
Still determining the exact point of the disc is non-trivial, a player could start to lag (emergency-save-now/at which point?), beeing unable to communicate his commands and drop a few seconds after. At the point of the drop the game could already be decided and the save-game would be useless. You could save multiple states, lag(1), lag(2), disc(3). But you would have to decide which one to use.
I'm not saying there is no way to make this work, its just a non-trivial-problem, so let's work on our patience.
We have multiplayer saving in RTS games 13 years ago. It worked simply: Player A drops. Player B or a spectator hits the save button. A new game lobby is hosted, player B chooses to load from save. The save game file is transferred to player A in the same way that maps are downloaded. The game resumes.
You can hack over lunch, but it's just so easy to break.
|
On April 09 2012 01:32 Gajarell wrote:Yeah if you have a third-party-guy, posessing the full-game-state, it's easier. Still determining the exact point of the disc is non-trivial, a player could start to lag (emergency-save-now/at which point?), beeing unable to communicate his commands and drop a few seconds after. At the point of the drop the game could already be decided and the save-game would be useless. You could save multiple states, lag(1), lag(2), disc(3). But you would have to decide which one to use. I'm not saying there is no way to make this work, its just a non-trivial-problem, so let's work on our patience. Show nested quote +We have multiplayer saving in RTS games 13 years ago. It worked simply: Player A drops. Player B or a spectator hits the save button. A new game lobby is hosted, player B chooses to load from save. The save game file is transferred to player A in the same way that maps are downloaded. The game resumes. You can hack over lunch, but it's just so easy to break.
wrong
both players already have the full game state (this is why maphacks work). this is not a complicated feature to implement, people saying it is don't know what they are talking about. its also already been done in a mod http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297534
saying that we haven't completely figured out how to save a game in a multiplayer rts (lol) is obviously untrue. warcraft 3 had it, as people have embarrasingly pointed out
|
Isn't there all ready a save and load tool custom map? Why don't we try to bypass blizzard all together and just make a custom that saves automatically every 1 minute for every map in the map pool?
|
In my heart of hearts I feel that Blizzard got what they deserved. Having a disconnect at a critical point in the biggest match of the year so far? What were those jokers thinking not putting in an option for high-profile tournaments to use LAN? Blizzard only has themselves to blame and though it's unfortunate for all the fans, I hope that the embarrassment this has caused Blizzard leads them to look more closely at their poor decision making.
|
I had just assumed that it was to difficulkt to impletment, but if WC3 had it idk why SC2 doesn't
|
I guess all we can hope for is that Blizz got some guilty feelings upon being there when it all happened, and are gonna look closer on this issue in the future. These kind of events really ruins the entire tournament.
|
On April 09 2012 01:43 MrEnzyme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:32 Gajarell wrote:Yeah if you have a third-party-guy, posessing the full-game-state, it's easier. Still determining the exact point of the disc is non-trivial, a player could start to lag (emergency-save-now/at which point?), beeing unable to communicate his commands and drop a few seconds after. At the point of the drop the game could already be decided and the save-game would be useless. You could save multiple states, lag(1), lag(2), disc(3). But you would have to decide which one to use. I'm not saying there is no way to make this work, its just a non-trivial-problem, so let's work on our patience. We have multiplayer saving in RTS games 13 years ago. It worked simply: Player A drops. Player B or a spectator hits the save button. A new game lobby is hosted, player B chooses to load from save. The save game file is transferred to player A in the same way that maps are downloaded. The game resumes. You can hack over lunch, but it's just so easy to break. wrong both players already have the full game state (this is why maphacks work). this is not a complicated feature to implement, people saying it is don't know what they are talking about. its also already been done in a mod http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297534saying that we haven't completely figured out how to save a game in a multiplayer rts (lol) is obviously untrue. warcraft 3 had it, as people have embarrasingly pointed out
Seriously, that mod might seem like it is related to this situation, but it really isn't. People need to stop linking it.
And all players/observers in any game already have all the game state information. This is why map hacks work and why each client can generate their own replay file.
|
All tournament problems are because of "No LAN". Let's keep making these threads with extra hyperboles!
|
I agree...the LAN thing can be somewhat understandable, but why a CUSTOM game can't be saveable is beyond me. Maybe due to the possibility of people being able to forge replays?
|
On April 09 2012 01:43 MrEnzyme wrote:wrong both players already have the full game state (this is why maphacks work). this is not a complicated feature to implement, people saying it is don't know what they are talking about. its also already been done in a mod http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297534saying that we haven't completely figured out how to save a game in a multiplayer rts (lol) is obviously untrue. warcraft 3 had it, as people have embarrasingly pointed out
Agreed. In theory, both clients need to have the same game state or the game is out of sync. I'm not sure if the server is involved with syncing the game.
I agree with you that saving the game state should be trivial for Blizzard. It's the loading of the game file that may be more complex, especially with observers joining, etc. I guess only Blizzard would know the answer to this.
|
On April 09 2012 01:28 axellerate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:18 Jackle wrote:On April 09 2012 01:09 axellerate wrote:
This isn't a solution with a game like starcraft 2. The issue is that many strategies revolved around your oppenent having no idea what your doing, like cloaked banshees. If the guy sees your banshees, and the game drops. Well, now your oppenent has an upper hand when the game is continued back from the previous saved point. I'm pretty sure you guys understand what I mean here.
Such information with builds like cloaked banshees, dts, all ins or whatever would mean that they're effectively soiled. Save points are just a back-up plan for massive server failures. A reconnection feature is the more important one, one that many of Blizzards competiting RTS games have already implemented. Heroes of Newerth, Dota2, and League all have reconnection features. Pausing when someone disconnects, and letting them reconnect to miss maybe a few seconds of game-time. So many people were dismissing the reconnect feature during the beta, "Oh we don't need reconnect, if someone disconnects in SC2 the game is already over." Well that's why you use it in combination with that nifty feature called pause, which referees can do once a player is lagging out. As a community we must stop pushing for LAN, something Blizzard will never implement in a million years. We should rather push for something many of Blizzards competiting games have already implemented, reconnection feature. "As a community we must stop pushing for LAN" No, no, no a million times no. How about as a paying and supporting customer? They're who they are because of us, not them. Is it too much to ask for a needed feature?
I said that because we should stop wasting our efforts on something that will never be implemented. The second they implement LAN is the second their game will be pirated for multiplayer. People think Blizzard cares about the community way more than they actually do.
|
On April 09 2012 01:52 Jackle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:28 axellerate wrote:On April 09 2012 01:18 Jackle wrote:On April 09 2012 01:09 axellerate wrote:
This isn't a solution with a game like starcraft 2. The issue is that many strategies revolved around your oppenent having no idea what your doing, like cloaked banshees. If the guy sees your banshees, and the game drops. Well, now your oppenent has an upper hand when the game is continued back from the previous saved point. I'm pretty sure you guys understand what I mean here.
Such information with builds like cloaked banshees, dts, all ins or whatever would mean that they're effectively soiled. Save points are just a back-up plan for massive server failures. A reconnection feature is the more important one, one that many of Blizzards competiting RTS games have already implemented. Heroes of Newerth, Dota2, and League all have reconnection features. Pausing when someone disconnects, and letting them reconnect to miss maybe a few seconds of game-time. So many people were dismissing the reconnect feature during the beta, "Oh we don't need reconnect, if someone disconnects in SC2 the game is already over." Well that's why you use it in combination with that nifty feature called pause, which referees can do once a player is lagging out. As a community we must stop pushing for LAN, something Blizzard will never implement in a million years. We should rather push for something many of Blizzards competiting games have already implemented, reconnection feature. "As a community we must stop pushing for LAN" No, no, no a million times no. How about as a paying and supporting customer? They're who they are because of us, not them. Is it too much to ask for a needed feature? I said that because we should stop wasting our efforts on something that will never be implemented. The second they implement LAN is the second their game will be pirated for multiplayer. People think Blizzard cares about the community way more than they actually do.
As a programmer, I can tell you that the game has already been cracked. So that point is false. And yea, its sickening how bad blizzards PR is and how they lack supporting a community which is so strong when it comes to supporting them.
Unfortunately, I am no longer part of that community. SC2 WOL was my last blizzard game. I even cancelled my D3 preorder.
|
On April 08 2012 19:17 StarcraftMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 19:14 tomatriedes wrote:
Completely agree with this, though I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. I don't think it's very hard for Blizzard to implement. I'm a programmer and all they have to do is a data dump to a file when the person drops out (they don't even have to save the map until a person drops out). Then they would need to tweak the code to allow the map to be reloaded with all parties in the lobby. It's easy to do for them - they could probably even add this functionality in the next patch.
Hey! I'm not going to bother looking at the source to see how they implemented game states and make statements about how easy it is to fix. Programming are easy!
|
On April 09 2012 01:32 Gajarell wrote:Yeah if you have a third-party-guy, posessing the full-game-state, it's easier. Still determining the exact point of the disc is non-trivial, a player could start to lag (emergency-save-now/at which point?), beeing unable to communicate his commands and drop a few seconds after. At the point of the drop the game could already be decided and the save-game would be useless. You could save multiple states, lag(1), lag(2), disc(3). But you would have to decide which one to use. I'm not saying there is no way to make this work, its just a non-trivial-problem, so let's work on our patience. Show nested quote +We have multiplayer saving in RTS games 13 years ago. It worked simply: Player A drops. Player B or a spectator hits the save button. A new game lobby is hosted, player B chooses to load from save. The save game file is transferred to player A in the same way that maps are downloaded. The game resumes. You can hack over lunch, but it's just so easy to break.
But we are trying to solve a problem for major tournaments where there will always be observers in games, and optionally referees in games. Also, I think we can trust professional players not to pull the cable out when they are losing at a live event.
As for saving multiple states: Have checkpoints every x seconds where both players report in. The game restarts from the last available checkpoint where both players reported in. You might get a second or two of rollback but it a lot better than a regame.
|
On April 08 2012 19:17 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 19:16 solidbebe wrote:On April 08 2012 19:15 ki11z0ne wrote:
they care... if they didnt they would not have a balancing team... idk people need top widen there perspective a lil.... its understandable why their is no LAN on sc2, and its fine with me
Why is it understandable? Because the day you incorporate LAN is the day I can steal StarCraft online, and play it without a battle.net account.
It's already possible to play Starcraft 2 on LAN/P2P — it's just an illegitimate/crack method.
On April 08 2012 19:14 tomatriedes wrote:
Completely agree with this, though I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it would be to implement.
The multiplayer save/load feature was already there from Brood War, so it should/would be very easy to implement.
edit: not surprisingly, this has already been said
Hacking would only be an issue for unsupervised matches, and non-trusted-players, which essentially makes it a complete non-issue. No-one wants to have the system mandatory for ladder or anything; it would just be a really useful feature for friends who were playing, or even 2 people having a grudge match, but most importantly supervised matches such as in tournaments.
|
On April 09 2012 01:55 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 19:14 tomatriedes wrote:
Completely agree with this, though I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. The multiplayer save/load feature was already there from Brood War, so it should/would be very easy to implement.
Whether or not Brood War had the feature has no bearing on how much work it'd take them to incorporate it into SC2, just fyi.
|
On April 09 2012 01:58 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:55 Xapti wrote:On April 08 2012 19:14 tomatriedes wrote:
Completely agree with this, though I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. The multiplayer save/load feature was already there from Brood War, so it should/would be very easy to implement. Whether or not Brood War had the feature has no bearing on how much work it'd take them to incorporate it into SC2, just fyi.
I guarantee that incorporating this into SC2 would take far less work than the 'Arcade' feature that is being added in patch 1.5.
|
These issues crop up all the time hopefully blizzard will listen eventually.
|
On April 09 2012 02:00 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 01:58 urashimakt wrote:On April 09 2012 01:55 Xapti wrote:On April 08 2012 19:14 tomatriedes wrote:
Completely agree with this, though I'm not a programmer so I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. The multiplayer save/load feature was already there from Brood War, so it should/would be very easy to implement. Whether or not Brood War had the feature has no bearing on how much work it'd take them to incorporate it into SC2, just fyi. I guarantee that incorporating this into SC2 would take far less work than the 'Arcade' feature that is being added in patch 1.5.
Yea lol. It wouldn't be that hard at all. Blizzard is pretty lazy if you ask me. One dude could have implemented every single feature we wanted (shared replays, LAN, Clan tags etc...) in about 3 months tops.
A whole team of experienced programmers like the ones at blizzard could have put everything in over the span of 3 weeks at most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
