|
On May 05 2010 07:23 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:45 tnud wrote:Blizzard is like: Herp derp we're gonna stop the pirates for two weeks and "(#&/ over the customer for a long time (until we feel like patching in it). Tell dustin to talk crap about it being superior and other bull and our most hardcore blizz fans will eat it up and defend us on the forums. Wait, people are trying to PLAY COMPETITIVELY in tournaments cross regions?! Haha, who would want to do tha-... o wait.. the community made starcraft a truly great e-sport all over the world... aaa shit. How come we forgot that? Oh well we'll shut it down after all these years and people might forget how good starcraft 1 was WITH LAN in tournaments before release.. what KeSPA doens't care about our lawsuit?! aww...
Then we'll send our special versions to approved partners, "#)( the community (and KeSPA) they can wine all they want we control the media, the broadcasted events will be perfectly lag free. Herp derp.Ahhh, nerd rage is the best rage. EDIT: one curse slipped in, also: ![[image loading]](http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7423/12462592362.jpg) The motivation to stopping the pirates is that the pirates will never have the full multiplayer experience with BNet (piracy was a huge problem for BW in China), and so there is less incentive to pirate. Valve uses the same logic, and pretty much no one pirates TF2. No one talks about them being evil right
TF2 is a massive online multiplayer (fps) game, starcraft is usually a 1vs1 deal. TF2 requires many players to be (as) fun, starcraft requires 2.
TF2 "pro" players are all over, starcraft pro's are usually located around korea, i.e no non-korean can face off with/compare themselves to a pro. TF2 doens't have this problem.
Valve is valve, they have no affiliation with evil Activision or any other major crappy game publisher.
TF2 HAS offline LAN ffs.
The thing is that with just a battle.net login for the ladder and online custom games should be enough, worked just fine for wc3. Yes it was pirated a lot but what isn't. The thing is that in ½ a year or so the "full multiplayer experience" will be the pirated version.
|
Here's a possible solution. I admit I'm not a game developer, but this implementation doesn't seem that difficult to do:
Players on a LAN must still have internet access, and must authenticate on battle.net.
On the multiplayer screen, you have already have the option of quick-joining a game and creating/joining a custom internet game, so a "Create/Join LAN game" is added to that. Everything is exactly the same as creating/joining a custom game, except the game is only visible to those on the LAN. When the game is started all the game traffic is routed through the LAN directly instead of Battle.net.
Everything is manged by battle.net except the game itself. The experience of playing a game on battle.net and playing a game on LAN is exactly the same, but playing a game over LAN avoids the lag of routing the game traffic through the battle.net servers.
Thoughts?
|
On May 05 2010 07:37 vAltyR wrote:
Here's a possible solution. I admit I'm not a game developer, but this implementation doesn't seem that difficult to do:
Players on a LAN must still have internet access, and must authenticate on battle.net.
On the multiplayer screen, you have already have the option of quick-joining a game and creating/joining a custom internet game, so a "Create/Join LAN game" is added to that. Everything is exactly the same as creating/joining a custom game, except the game is only visible to those on the LAN. When the game is started all the game traffic is routed through the LAN directly instead of Battle.net.
Everything is manged by battle.net except the game itself. The experience of playing a game on battle.net and playing a game on LAN is exactly the same, but playing a game over LAN avoids the lag of routing the game traffic through the battle.net servers.
Thoughts?
I've always heard over and over that this is what they are doing at retail. I'm not sure how accurate it is since I don't remember where it originated and I've heard it thrown around here and there.
|
On May 05 2010 07:37 vAltyR wrote:
Here's a possible solution. I admit I'm not a game developer, but this implementation doesn't seem that difficult to do:
Players on a LAN must still have internet access, and must authenticate on battle.net.
On the multiplayer screen, you have already have the option of quick-joining a game and creating/joining a custom internet game, so a "Create/Join LAN game" is added to that. Everything is exactly the same as creating/joining a custom game, except the game is only visible to those on the LAN. When the game is started all the game traffic is routed through the LAN directly instead of Battle.net.
Everything is manged by battle.net except the game itself. The experience of playing a game on battle.net and playing a game on LAN is exactly the same, but playing a game over LAN avoids the lag of routing the game traffic through the battle.net servers.
Thoughts?
Blizzard already has LAN working in sc2, they've used it at cons/presentations and whatnot to exclude the possibility of battle.net lag and d/c... Yes your suggestion is sound, they're just stubborn.
EDIT: above poster
On May 05 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 07:37 vAltyR wrote:
Here's a possible solution. I admit I'm not a game developer, but this implementation doesn't seem that difficult to do:
Players on a LAN must still have internet access, and must authenticate on battle.net.
On the multiplayer screen, you have already have the option of quick-joining a game and creating/joining a custom internet game, so a "Create/Join LAN game" is added to that. Everything is exactly the same as creating/joining a custom game, except the game is only visible to those on the LAN. When the game is started all the game traffic is routed through the LAN directly instead of Battle.net.
Everything is manged by battle.net except the game itself. The experience of playing a game on battle.net and playing a game on LAN is exactly the same, but playing a game over LAN avoids the lag of routing the game traffic through the battle.net servers.
Thoughts? I've always heard over and over that this is what they are doing at retail. I'm not sure how accurate it is since I don't remember where it originated and I've heard it thrown around here and there.
"we don't have any plans to support LAN," he said and clarified "we will not support it." The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net.
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/190/StarCraftIIDevelopersInterviewed
|
On May 05 2010 07:24 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith! Because as a sequel to a popular game, it can never live up to their expectations.
Pretty much. To some people Blizz was never going to suceed.
|
On May 02 2010 16:00 Zed03 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:58 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I think Bnet 2 will be just fine once they get a channel system up and running. Its retarded trying to host a tourny or run a event on bnet 2 at the moment. I also dont really notice much latancy on bnet, but maybe thats just me. So I think once we get channels i won't miss LAN at all. There will be no channels, this is confirmed
They confirmed they are planning a chat feature, and that it will be based more on specific topics and interest areas to avoid 'general discussion' type default chat. Whether it'll be channels per se or some other implementation, we will have to wait and see, but chat is coming in some form. Read the Dev Chats.
|
On May 05 2010 07:43 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 07:24 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith! Because as a sequel to a popular game, it can never live up to their expectations. Pretty much. To some people Blizz was never going to suceed.
Thats BS: Most ppl here know the current problems of SC2, it's just a matter of if you care about sc2 being as good as possible or not.
|
On May 05 2010 07:50 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 07:43 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 07:24 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith! Because as a sequel to a popular game, it can never live up to their expectations. Pretty much. To some people Blizz was never going to suceed. Thats BS: Most ppl here know the current problems of SC2, it's just a matter of if you care about sc2 being as good as possible or not.
Exactly! Right now their DRM (or whatever their intention is, be it KeSPA related or not) solution is hindering this.
"Bla bla bla it's BETA." NO! They've set a release date! What we're playing now is VERY close to the final (as in release) build of multiplayer. They've SAID that they won't add LAN in, even though they already have the code and the opportunity to patch it. They are being very vague on the chat system, which means it's not super mega awesome or else they'd show it off more. As far as I know we haven't even seen the interface for it yet.. and the pm system is odd, only 6 chats at any one time etc.
Please blizz, in this day and age I can't play with my American friends?
|
On May 05 2010 07:43 Bull-Demon wrote:
Pretty much. To some people Blizz was never going to suceed.
You're either a troll or a real idiot.
Nobody wishes for Blizzard to fail, and even the whiniest person on these boards is probably wanting SC2 to be the best game it can be. But cutting features like chatrooms which have been standard for about ever is just stupid. You CAN make an argument against LAN because of piracy, even though it's flawed because no LAN will just give pirates an extra incentive to crack the game, but there is no argument for holding back chat rooms. What, massive server load because of text? You're telling me they can't detect spam bots?
All these concerns are 100% legitimate, and we'd rather annoy poor little you right now and make sure Blizzard employees reading these forums see this, than have a game which we are all hoping will become "the next big thing" in competitive gaming be crippled because of unjustified removal of features as common and expected as chat rooms.
|
On May 05 2010 06:50 CowGoMoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period =(
Eh, don't worry- threads to vent anger will happen over the interwebz, and Starcraft 2 -or any game for that matter- isn't for everyone. Many people here at Teamliquid can't wait for the game to come out, and we've been waiting what, two years already? The fact that such a large community has so much patience and expectations over your next product says heaps of praise for Blizzard and its products.
And honestly, about the no LAN thing- remember Spore? People actually went out of their way to boycott the product to show their rage over its DRM. This thread, by comparison, is rather tame even compared to the WoW forums, and look at WoW being as successful as ever despite all the whining and complaining.
I love Blizzard, I love its products, and while I wish SC2 had native LAN capacity (and I will probably hack the game if I can get LAN functionality this way), SC2 is easily worth US$60 to me because of its campaign, multiplayer and UMS potential- even without LAN.
|
On May 05 2010 08:21 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 07:43 Bull-Demon wrote:
Pretty much. To some people Blizz was never going to suceed. You're either a troll or a real idiot. Nobody wishes for Blizzard to fail, and even the whiniest person on these boards is probably wanting SC2 to be the best game it can be. But cutting features like chatrooms which have been standard for about ever is just stupid. You CAN make an argument against LAN because of piracy, even though it's flawed because no LAN will just give pirates an extra incentive to crack the game, but there is no argument for holding back chat rooms. What, massive server load because of text? You're telling me they can't detect spam bots? All these concerns are 100% legitimate, and we'd rather annoy poor little you right now and make sure Blizzard employees reading these forums see this, than have a game which we are all hoping will become "the next big thing" in competitive gaming be crippled because of unjustified removal of features as common and expected as chat rooms.
Pretty sure, as confirmed in dev chat, that chat rooms in some form will be included.
I also don't think anyone wants SC2 to fail. I think some people have the wrong expectations. If you wanted a reskinned BW, you're gonna be disappointed. If you somehow expected a beta build of a game to revolution professional RTS gaming, you're gonna be disappointed.
Who said I was annoyed, take your frustrations out on the beta forums, not on me, here. I was mostly talking about people that were already calling the game a total failure. Only way someone could think that is if they had unrealistic expectations.
|
I love how blizzard said the goal of bnet 2.0 was to bring people together.
The interface, regional servers, and terrible terrible identifier system are doing the opposite or hindering their stated goal. Hopefully things change with the actual release.
B.net 1.0/LAN, is better designed at this point.
HoN's user interaction system and xblox lives system both make B.net 2.0 look inferior. And HoN is $30?
|
On May 05 2010 07:13 tnud wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith! It shouldn't take 2-3 years to make the game good, wtf are you talking about. They know what made starcraft 1 good. They've tried to implement much of it into sc2 without totally copying it and succeeded pretty well in doing so. The game itself is good, the interface is NOT. Unless they do a 180 on these two MAJOR issues (no global play in any form & no way to not rely on the battle.net servers for EVERYTHING) it won't be as great as it should be. Ironically both these issues, which was a non-issue in sc1, can be solved by a hacked/pirated version since it isn't a problem with the game itself, just the server layout. They NEED to rethink this otherwise the hacked (but paid for so you can still play ladder and all that) version will be the superior one.. that's not how a game should be designed. Make it as good as you can get it, then "let" the hackers improve on it years later when the initial architecture has grown old. Fine make me connect to battle.net for every game but don't force me to send ALL the packages trough your servers, in the long run blizzards server costs should go down and the pirate protection will still be there, but maybe not as strong as before. As it stands now, every pro starcraft gamer will have a real version and a hacked one...(just like everyone here who plays BW have prob only the hacked version.. why can't they just give us what we want instead of forcing us to do this?)
I was mostly referring to balance issues in the 2-3 year post. Not interface options and features. I definitely agree on your other points though. The game should be global, and chat is definitely lacking.
|
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;>
|
On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;>
I think blizzard knows they can get away with it. If this was ANY other company, people would probably be boycotting their game and it would be a failure.
|
after playing beta for a month, all i can say, netcode is awesome.
dunno about playing in a real lan over a single router
|
My computer is so slow I don't notice the latency, although I"m not playing people in my house, so that may be the reason. However, the random crashes makes me say no, it does not.
|
On May 05 2010 09:34 s.a.y wrote:
after playing beta for a month, all i can say, netcode is awesome.
Oh, yeah. I agree 100%- after having tried playing Street Fighter 4 (unplayable lag) and Blazblue (lag annoying enough to turn me off), the latency for SC2 has been unbelievably good.
|
On May 05 2010 09:19 Butigroove wrote:
I love how blizzard said the goal of bnet 2.0 was to bring people together.
The interface, regional servers, and terrible terrible identifier system are doing the opposite or hindering their stated goal. Hopefully things change with the actual release.
B.net 1.0/LAN, is better designed at this point.
HoN's user interaction system and xblox lives system both make B.net 2.0 look inferior. And HoN is $30?
Hon is also pretty much a 10 player game with only 10 units so cmd flooding isn't too much of an issue, so region lag can easily be handled like in a fps, not too sure about hons lag but it's probably around 100ms or less one would imagine.
|
On May 05 2010 07:13 tnud wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith! It shouldn't take 2-3 years to make the game good, wtf are you talking about. They know what made starcraft 1 good. They've tried to implement much of it into sc2 without totally copying it and succeeded pretty well in doing so. The game itself is good, the interface is NOT. Unless they do a 180 on these two MAJOR issues (no global play in any form & no way to not rely on the battle.net servers for EVERYTHING) it won't be as great as it should be. Ironically both these issues, which was a non-issue in sc1, can be solved by a hacked/pirated version since it isn't a problem with the game itself, just the server layout. They NEED to rethink this otherwise the hacked (but paid for so you can still play ladder and all that) version will be the superior one.. that's not how a game should be designed. Make it as good as you can get it, then "let" the hackers improve on it years later when the initial architecture has grown old. Fine make me connect to battle.net for every game but don't force me to send ALL the packages trough your servers, in the long run blizzards server costs should go down and the pirate protection will still be there, but maybe not as strong as before. As it stands now, every pro starcraft gamer will have a real version and a hacked one...(just like everyone here who plays BW have prob only the hacked version.. why can't they just give us what we want instead of forcing us to do this?)
I would wager that most (if not all) the complaints about the UI is that it differs from that of BW, forgetting there are three very important (and rather large) reasons for the changes.
1. BW was designed for, and largely on, displays that were 4:3; SC2 is, by contrast, designed for widescreen displays (and largely on said displays). Playing BW on a widescreen display is a real nasty chore (according to the threads in the BW forum here, no less), and that utterly leaves aside my second and third points.
2. SC2 is designed for a much taller resolution than BW. BW tops out (generally) at 1024x768, and that involves hacking some INI files; SC2 on the other hand is playable at 1360x800 even on my shrimpy-wimp of a desktop, and that's actually considered low. Then you have...
3. SC2's LOD (level of detail, naturally) is reflected not just in the units themselves, but in the UI. Even the UI has a LOD that leaves BW a twisted wreck (and this is at the previously mentioned 1360x800 in medium detail).
In fact, it is for these three reasons that, despite owning (and having installed!) SC Anthology (the replacement for BattleChest) and gotten Classic BNet working, I don't even play SC or BW single-player, let alone on BNet.
And I'm nowhere near the pro level.
If anything, the pro SC or BW player has a heck of a lot more to *unlearn* in making the jump to SC2 (and a large number likely won't, because not only the learning curve, but the UNlearning curve, is very very steep). If you have been playing BW on the pro level for as little as five years (let alone the twelve since BW's launch), and especially if you have been playing in league matches, tournaments, and even *friendlies* during that period, there are a set of tactics that have become ingrained into your brain and muscles (the term "muscle memory" applies just as much to e-sports as it does to traditional professional-level sports), the adjustment is that much harder than it is for the high-level or even mid-level amateur, let alone the newbie, because you not only have all to learn that the newbie does, but a lot to unlearn as well.
Therefore, I (and Blizzard as well) expect a dual (or even multi) set of professional (and lower level) leagues; some based on SC/BW, and others based on SC2.
It won't be pretty; but it will reflect reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
