|
On April 08 2012 23:28 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 23:11 StarcraftMan wrote:On April 08 2012 23:00 Tyree wrote:
is not some sort of button they can just press and voila! Its there. I can imagine something like this would be a huge undertaking for them
As a professional programmer myself, if their code is structured flexibily and well designed, it shouldn't be too hard for them to do. If not, then I guess us fans will have to wait. Only the Blizzard programmers really know in the end. As a professional programmer, what would you say to a PM that came up to you and said: "Hey, make sure your code is flexible". - "Why?" "So that implementing new features in the future is possible." - "What features?" "Nothing specific right now, just make if flexible." I was a programmer for some time, but never got into design patterns too heavily. Is this kind of flexibility actually achievable? In that can you program it in such a way that "New Feature X" is easy to implement for any values of X? And maybe more pertinent, how much does this add to time and cost?
Or, it's called making a proper architecture in the first place. You are right, unconditioned modularity is impossible to achieve. It highly depends on the profile you designed it for. But the fact they removed already existing features, which can be regarded common sense in multiplayer online games, speaks volumes to their philosophy. You should call such hindsight for what it is, bad programming.
|
The technology is not there yet.
|
On April 09 2012 00:32 Hikari wrote:
The technology is not there yet.
The technology existed well before the work on SC2 and was dismissed by choice.
|
they could at the very least lie and say they will do something about it, that's been their line in the past regarding the issue
|
I don't mind having no LAN actually.
Look at Warcraft 3 for example. Player base of that game is split among various non-official realms like EuroBnet, iCCup, Garena and Hamachi. It's just overall bad for the game.
I like this save game idea though. It would be a really good feature for tournaments and I think it shouldn't be too hard too implement something like this.
|
Blizzard just cares a lot less than we do. Any time they ever show signs of "caring" you best believe the potential for increased profits is involved.
|
If there was just some way, I don't care how, to resume a custom game for a dropped played, then I might forgive them for not having LAN. At least do something Blizz, please :/
|
On April 08 2012 19:16 Rinnegan5 wrote:
The technology isnt there yet!
On April 08 2012 21:19 kongoline wrote:
we dont have the technology yet
On April 08 2012 22:50 RusHXceL wrote:The tech isn't just there yet 
On April 09 2012 00:32 Hikari wrote:
The technology is not there yet.
Thank you for commenting. This is quite creative work.
|
On April 09 2012 00:41 nvs. wrote:
Blizzard just cares a lot less than we do. Any time they ever show signs of "caring" you best believe the potential for increased profits is involved.
Watch as they tag on a subscription fee for LAN.
|
Blizzard seriously needs to do something about this issue. Seriously.
|
On April 09 2012 00:32 Hikari wrote:
The technology is not there yet.
This joke wasn't funny the 3rd time people repeated it, and it's not going to be funny the 10,000th time. I don't understand you people :|
|
I can see this very helpful and it might even solve the issue for the moment. Also i dont think its hard to implement; we've seen save/loads in DotA games when one of the team dropped the game just loaded and contiuned to play.
This might be another feature where bnet 1 rolls over bnet 2.0
|
This is of course way more complicated than some of my colleagues make it out to be.
At first you have to consider that client-side "just dumping the file on disconnect" can't create a synced save for both players (they cant communicate the state they want to save). Secondly you cant just simply let one player recreate a game from a savefile without verifying that this is the disconnect-state (one sided manipulation of the game).
Therefore some games did go the way of just saving every x minutes (synced game-saves), that would suck for sc2, you could have a safegame before the big micro-intensive fight which turned the game around for one side. Also the save-file can't be easily readable (encrypted, decrypting with assistance of the server side?).
Does any client even have the full game-state? That would probably be an easy entry for maphack, the server would need to assist again. The server would probably need to be aware of the entire gamesatete and create a savefile on disconnect (yeah.. when exactly did that happen?) which both players can access for the certain timeperiod, but thats heavily dependand on the current implementations and would probably be something for hots to introduce.
And thats just my first few thoughts on that..
|
I'm really wondering why there's no saving in multiplayer in the first place, in wc3 and sc1 there was, and even in the sc2 single player there is. It's so simple but blizzard didn't add it, I really don't know why.
Perhaps technology is devolving and now you can't make save button even though you work on sc2 for 3-4 years.
|
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.
|
cause blizzard only add features to the games that will make them money, they don't add features to help the game (not anymore at least). Not like their sales will go up by adding this feature, people bought their games anyway already so they can take their sweet time adding such simple things. I've lost all my respect for blizzard over the last 5 years, all they care about is releasing a game with the bare minimum amount of features to get money. Even wc3 had a save game feature and that's 10 years old, blizzard can't add that in sc2? of course they can they have the best programmers in the world probably but they are just lazy and would rather work on things that actual make them money.
|
On April 09 2012 01:04 Gajarell wrote:
This is of course way more complicated than some of my colleagues make it out to be.
At first you have to consider that "just dumping the file on disconnect" can't create a synced save for both players (they cant communicate the state they want to save). Secondly you cant just simply let one player recreate a game from a savefile without verifying that this is the disconnect-state (one sided manipulation of the game).
Therefore some games did go the way of just saving every x minutes (synced game-saves), that would suck for sc2, you could have a safegame before the big micro-intensive fight which turned the game around for one side. Also the save-file can't be easily readable (encrypted, decrypting with assistance of the server side?).
Does any client even have the full game-state? That would probably be an easy entry for maphack, the server would need to assist again.
And thats just my first few thoughts on that..
First and foremost, I'm assuming that the client has all game information (if this weren't the case, I don't know how
those maphacks work). If this is true, regarding sync issues, if there is a referee in the match, the referee's save file could be used. This would be the last state of the game on the referee's client before the disconnect.
The game can be saved on the official disconnect of the player rather every X minutes. That guarantees the latest state of the game and would include the big micro-intensive fight.
|
On April 09 2012 00:45 anonymitylol wrote:This joke wasn't funny the 3rd time people repeated it, and it's not going to be funny the 10,000th time. I don't understand you people :|
What's so funny about it? They speak truth! Tech really isn't there yet, because if it did they would have implemented it. Right?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
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.
|
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.
Multiplayer saving is better than LAN. Computers can still crash with LAN.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
