EPTso it's professional.
Why doesn't Blizzard auto-save if player drops? - Page 13
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
so it's professional. | ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
| ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On April 09 2012 03:18 Arghnews wrote: Why is Bliz holding back LAN? As said, if you give us LAN, so many people, especially for example in Cyber Cafes in Asia, will go and get crack copies and then play over LAN. Perhaps even over such programs as Garena would make it free for us over the world from our rooms too. Also, I COMPLETELY agree: why no save on disconnect? There is practically no reason to save Blizzard's stupid decision making, laziness, but also and most importantly this is NOT MENTIONED ENOUGH! IT'S A GREAT IDEA :D . Me and friends play wc3 custom maps, and always one of us wil disconnect 45 mins into our epic WC3 TD's  (((( It's so easy to save on DC, I love this idea for SC2.Because they think it stops piracy and they refuse to admit they were wrong. On April 09 2012 04:31 winthrop wrote: there are rules for dcs so it's professional. That makes no sense whatsoever. | ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On April 08 2012 19:24 Chargelot wrote: So Blizzard should sponsor their product being stolen, and make it just that much easier? I think a better way to think of it is: Not purposefully fucking their product at the expense of players who DO buy it because it'll be pirated either way. I didn't know LAN was a feature made exclusively for the purpose to allow pirates to play. | ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
On April 09 2012 04:31 winthrop wrote: there are rules for dcs so it's professional. I think the OP is talking about a offline tournament environment... | ||
|
Panzamelano
Colombia248 Posts
a save system is probably the only thing that Activision would let them do since they strongly believe that lan = piracy = death of the industry | ||
|
FinalForm
United States450 Posts
| ||
|
Sergio1992
Italy522 Posts
On April 09 2012 03:39 nvs. wrote: Read the quote directly above yours, there's nothing they could have done. not true. Did you watch the entire vod? that was said just to pacify the raging souls of people who started raging for the absence of lan on internet.  | ||
|
KaueCastro
Brazil18 Posts
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. They already have something that look a lot just like the idea. Do u know your ur replays? They are a game where u look like a player or something like that. The problem would be start the game from when it stopped. Just like if the replay became a map and then they could play from there. Mike Morhaime should read what im saying now, it could be very useful. | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
RIPJAWS
Canada26 Posts
| ||
|
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
i think it will cost a lot and it doesnt have good roi. Keep in mind blizzard is just gaming company its not like apple, samsung etc... | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
On April 09 2012 03:36 Reign.SLush wrote: Here's a quote from David Ting IPL director. "Computer lost connectivity to the local network during the MKP vs Parting. LAN mode would not have helped with this issue." So LAN wouldnt matter, people seems to forget that almost all disconnection issue is due to local network problems. À Save on custom Game would be the best. As soon as someone's countdown starts it should save the game. He posted a more detailed explanation on reddit also. "For those who are looking for the technical explanation, we have a complex network infrastructure at the event. According to our network engineer, the symptoms (backstage systems) that we saw even after that main stage lost connectivity seem to point to a DHCP related issue. The way things appear to be set up, Cosmo created different network blocks for the different sections / areas. For instance, the SC2 stage area is in a different network block as the master control (SC2). The master control is shared with the LoL stage and tables. The master control (LoL) is on another block, etc. etc. What I'm suspecting is that the SC2 stage machine that had issues reached its DHCP half-life and was trying to renewing its IP with the DHCP server. This is likely the cause of the disconnect. In layman's term, there is protection on the hotel network that disallows connections that have over 24 hour duration. We likely have hit a glitch that caused the disconnect. I will talk to Blizzard tomorrow regarding adding a reconnect option. " But the question is if the game had LAN would they be connected to the hotel's complex network infrastructure or would they have their own network that just has to connect the 2 players plus observers that they have complete control over with no surprises like this. | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
They already perfectly preserve the state of the game in the replay. Shared replays are already 'on the list' of coming features according to blizzard. Load up replay, hit play-game-from-here button. Done. No need for LAN or some other system of saving the game. | ||
|
bro_fenix
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On April 09 2012 05:46 JackDT wrote: >I don't understand why they don't add an option to auto-save the map when a player times out They already perfectly preserve the state of the game in the replay. Shared replays are already 'on the list' of coming features according to blizzard. Load up replay, hit play-game-from-here button. Done. No need for LAN or some other system of saving the game. LAN is most certainly needed because it can stop more instances of a save state being necesarry in the first place. It's not a small feature to ommit. | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On April 09 2012 05:49 Serpico wrote: LAN is most certainly needed because it can stop more instances of a save state being necesarry in the first place. It's not a small feature to ommit. You don't need LAN for a reconnect option. Let the gameclient store the replay-file when a game crashes (replays are just sequences of actions with timestamps). When the reconnect option is chosen, both clients communicate the contents of their replay file and find the last timestamp where both replays agree. This will be the timestamp that the game will start at. Rerun the game from the replay-file (just like you'd do with replay watching) until the decided timestamp. Add a 10-20 sec countdown so that players can orient themselves on the situation and you're good to go. | ||
|
quantumslip
United States188 Posts
and of course, this won't happen overnight, with regards to the reconnect. but people make it to be more difficult than it actually would be. why? the replay feature, at the very least, can be used as the basis to recreate the game conditions at the time the drop happened. an actual reconnect wouldn't be hard either (just disable the timeout and add support to reconnect even if the computer shuts off). some of the building blocks are there, they just have to add the rest in. at the very least they should bring that to HoTS. and with regards to this being low on the priority list: this is akin to adding airbags to a car. you hope you never have to use it, you don't use it everyday, but when you do have to use it you are glad to have it. | ||
|
windzor
Denmark1013 Posts
On April 09 2012 05:44 coolcor wrote: He posted a more detailed explanation on reddit also. But the question is if the game had LAN would they be connected to the hotel's complex network infrastructure or would they have their own network that just has to connect the 2 players plus observers that they have complete control over with no surprises like this. Yes, because those observers would need internet to broadcast the game. And a DHCP server would still be something you would use on that small closed network you are talking about, the chance of that hickup happening would just be smaller because fewer clients would be connected to the DHCP server and therefore less renew failures would happen. And no, nobody would use static ip's for this. That would be terrible network design and make room for even more errors than a properly configured DHCP setup. A savegame feature will only be good if it's autosave. Seeing an observer saving the game after every battle would ruin the spectator view. And autosave would only be good if it's done atleast every 5 second. If we take the autosave feature dota2 it saves every minut at .00. But let's say somebody made a pylon in a base, you scouted it, and a warp-in happened. The game crashed, it's .59 seconds and the save is ~1 min old. Now you know there is a pylon in the base and your opponent went all in on it. Fair to use that savegame? No, you have more information and alot less time needed to prepare yourself. I dota, preperation takes longer time and hence 1 min is acceptable, but sometimes unfair. Though often 1 engagement doesn't secure the win and hence you can accept it. This is harder in SC2. And the reason you can't do a save every 5 seconds would be servercost. Blizzard would need to keep every savegame, for every 5 seconds in game time, for every customgame, for 24 hours. That's alot of diskspace, no matter how small a savegames is. So it's a big investment for blizzard to make in order to get it to work. | ||
| ||
