|
On May 02 2010 15:31 DeCoup wrote:
Routed p2p coupled with native latency is terrible.
I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net as long as I can play with 0 latency if my opponent is in the same house.
I think this would all be solved if custom games were not routed and the latency between the two computers was tested and then a suitable latency was selected. On a ladder route the signal to b.net servers if you want. I don't care. You need ways to prevent hacks and to get game data for balancing or whatever. But in custom I don't see the need. Hell make it a toggle that defaults to on...
For example If I am in a custom game with people all in my house the latency would be 0 so the game would not include any built in latency. If I am playing with people in my state then the game would perform a maybe 5 pings between each player then set the native latency to maybe 30 higher than that to help with spikes. This would mean I can play with my friends at around 100 latency instead of 250.
 except sc1 lan isn't even 0 latency there is a built in latency for sc lan of 100 ms i believe or perhaps it was 125ms T_T people just don't pay attention to things like that though and go oh hey lan must mean the latency = 1ms delay. It's done like that to save your cpu cycles, just like the people who wants 1000hz 1ms refresh rate on their mice and keyboard that too eats up cpu cycles same thing happens when you have something sending large portions of data every millisecond.
lan brings stability that's all. I mean there is no Internet for the data to travel over and get progressively corrupted. So the changes of a lag spike or someone disconnecting or not being quick enough to not lag the game is unlikely.
edit: edited out some things that i checked and where wrong T_T darn i wish i was always right make things so much easier.
|
On May 02 2010 15:56 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:54 CagedMind wrote:
What I want to know is what are your supposed to do when there is finals for a 20k tournament and servers shut down. You can't do anything. Blizzard has stated that they want to centralize eSports. Part of this is having all tournaments depend on Battle.net 2.0.
Not possible for any strong pro scene to exist if this how it's done.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On May 02 2010 15:40 Sent wrote:
Because 10 years later, most of us who have small LANs have an internet connection that can handle all the people there.
It'll surely feel like a blast of the past if you you are playing on "LAN" with people in the same room and suddenly the game starts to lag and people drop.
It's insane that setting up LAN games with a couple of friends is getting as obnoxious as it was 15 years ago.
|
In all honesty, if Blizzard wants this game to truly shine and to have the most highly skilled players exhibit the best the game can possibly offer, they need to remove the latency as much as possible. The reason why progames in Korea have evolved so much micro wise is because of 0 latency. without 0 latency, we don't have muta micro in BW. i feel that on top of the better AI, the few miliseconds of lag you get make it so impossible to do extremely precise micro. sure you can position your army and that, but early game harass where you only have a few units and need to make the most out of them, whether attacking or defending, battle.net currently sucks for that, even though they've supposedly reduced it.
and that's only gameplay, which, because of the automatchmaking system (yes I know it's not perfect, but it beats the hell out of sitting idle in a b.net chatroom. and i'm a huge fan of it) is the best part of the experience.
Battle.net doesn't have cross server division rankings, let alone cross, no way to host tournaments, no chat channels, no way of accessing other players records beyond those of your friends list, no way to easily access replays of other players, shirt of downloading them from 3rd party sites like we did in BW, no stat traking system so you can monitor your strengths and weaknesses, and it has this ridiculous identifier system, which makes it a massive pain in the ass to find ppl to add as friends. I would also like to note, that every single one of these things (beside the id tag) are things that Blizzard has said that they will implement at one point, and has totally failed to do, and have pretty much said that they won't be implementing at release.
Battle.net's matchmaking system is awesome. you can get in and out of games quickly and effeciently. and the replay viewing/ observing station is absolutely flawless and amazing. however, in EVERY OTHER CATEGORY, blizzard has taken massive leaps backwards, and I personally think that's unacceptable.
this was not supposed to be so long, but i had to get it out.
|
On May 02 2010 16:17 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:40 Sent wrote:
Because 10 years later, most of us who have small LANs have an internet connection that can handle all the people there. It'll surely feel like a blast of the past if you you are playing on "LAN" with people in the same room and suddenly the game starts to lag and people drop. It's insane that setting up LAN games with a couple of friends is getting as obnoxious as it was 15 years ago.
I'm sure there's a fix to our problem, but the issue is why do I want to spend at least an hour diagnosing and fixing a problem when implementing LAN would make everything much easier =\
|
On May 02 2010 16:07 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:31 DeCoup wrote:
Routed p2p coupled with native latency is terrible.
I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net as long as I can play with 0 latency if my opponent is in the same house.
I think this would all be solved if custom games were not routed and the latency between the two computers was tested and then a suitable latency was selected. On a ladder route the signal to b.net servers if you want. I don't care. You need ways to prevent hacks and to get game data for balancing or whatever. But in custom I don't see the need. Hell make it a toggle that defaults to on...
For example If I am in a custom game with people all in my house the latency would be 0 so the game would not include any built in latency. If I am playing with people in my state then the game would perform a maybe 5 pings between each player then set the native latency to maybe 30 higher than that to help with spikes. This would mean I can play with my friends at around 100 latency instead of 250. except sc1 lan isn't even 0 latency there is a built in latency for sc lan of 100 ms i believe or perhaps it was 125ms T_T people just don't pay attention to things like that though and go oh hey lan must mean the latency = 1ms delay. It's done like that to save your cpu cycles, just like the people who wants 1000hz 1ms refresh rate on their mice and keyboard that too eats up cpu cycles same thing happens when you have something sending large portions of data every millisecond. lan brings stability that's all. I mean there is no Internet for the data to travel over and get progressively corrupted. So the changes of a lag spike or someone disconnecting or not being quick enough to not lag the game is unlikely. edit: edited out some things that i checked and where wrong T_T darn i wish i was always right make things so much easier.
Did I say SC1 had 0 latency? Does SC2 having set latency in a lan mean SC2 cant? Networking has improved a lot over the years. With less data loss and higher speeds available these days there is no reason not to have near 0 latency in LAN.
I don't care if ladders or even custom games are routed via b.net
I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net to play lan
But I do believe that there is no reason why a lan game can't be played without routing or embedded latency.
I take back what I said about custom mode being at lan latency. Because it is true that we want to avoid map hackers in custom. But there should be some option to get 0 latency on a lan. If anything just to prevent people from making a new iccup style hacked server.
|
On May 02 2010 15:35 Kegs.aus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:31 DeCoup wrote:
Routed p2p coupled with native latency is terrible.
I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net as long as I can play with 0 latency if my opponent is in the same house.
I think this would all be solved if custom games were not routed and the latency between the two computers was tested and then a suitable latency was selected. On a ladder route the signal to b.net servers if you want. I don't care. You need ways to prevent hacks and to get game data for balancing or whatever. But in custom I don't see the need. Hell make it a toggle that defaults to on...
For example If I am in a custom game with people all in my house the latency would be 0 so the game would not include any built in latency. If I am playing with people in my state then the game would perform a maybe 5 pings between each player then set the native latency to maybe 30 higher than that to help with spikes. This would mean I can play with my friends at around 100 latency instead of 250. I think all games should be hosted by bnet.... we dont need more drop programs and maphacks for sc2 dota and other custom games...if u want lan latency stick with iccup and sc1. Give blizzard a chance to really flesh bnet 2,0 out first...then if you dont like it, dont play sc2? $0.02, I dont intend to sound like a troll flamer...sorry if it comes across like that.
the "if you don't like it, don't play it" idea is really not a good solution. That's like saying you don't like a rule that football implemented, so you stop watching football altogether. And in this case, something that really has nothing to do with the gameplay itself has become an issue, and we're suggesting to stop playing SC2 because of it? Something doesn't sound right there.
|
On May 02 2010 15:55 Zed03 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:48 iloahz wrote:
BN 2.0 = misery.
Watching that starswar tournament in China was so much torture that one would want to kill himself. sadly, this. I wish blizzard would show that video in the morning meeting to their product director and just show him how humiliating their work is.
Can someone link to a VOD of this or something?
|
On May 02 2010 16:55 DeCoup wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 16:07 semantics wrote:On May 02 2010 15:31 DeCoup wrote:
Routed p2p coupled with native latency is terrible.
I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net as long as I can play with 0 latency if my opponent is in the same house.
I think this would all be solved if custom games were not routed and the latency between the two computers was tested and then a suitable latency was selected. On a ladder route the signal to b.net servers if you want. I don't care. You need ways to prevent hacks and to get game data for balancing or whatever. But in custom I don't see the need. Hell make it a toggle that defaults to on...
For example If I am in a custom game with people all in my house the latency would be 0 so the game would not include any built in latency. If I am playing with people in my state then the game would perform a maybe 5 pings between each player then set the native latency to maybe 30 higher than that to help with spikes. This would mean I can play with my friends at around 100 latency instead of 250. except sc1 lan isn't even 0 latency there is a built in latency for sc lan of 100 ms i believe or perhaps it was 125ms T_T people just don't pay attention to things like that though and go oh hey lan must mean the latency = 1ms delay. It's done like that to save your cpu cycles, just like the people who wants 1000hz 1ms refresh rate on their mice and keyboard that too eats up cpu cycles same thing happens when you have something sending large portions of data every millisecond. lan brings stability that's all. I mean there is no Internet for the data to travel over and get progressively corrupted. So the changes of a lag spike or someone disconnecting or not being quick enough to not lag the game is unlikely. edit: edited out some things that i checked and where wrong T_T darn i wish i was always right make things so much easier. Did I say SC1 had 0 latency? Does SC2 having set latency in a lan mean SC2 cant? Networking has improved a lot over the years. With less data loss and higher speeds available these days there is no reason not to have near 0 latency in LAN. I don't care if ladders or even custom games are routed via b.net I don't care if I have to be logged into b.net to play lan But I do believe that there is no reason why a lan game can't be played without routing or embedded latency. I take back what I said about custom mode being at lan latency. Because it is true that we want to avoid map hackers in custom. But there should be some option to get 0 latency on a lan. If anything just to prevent people from making a new iccup style hacked server.
the main point of showing that sc1 didn't have near 0 latency in lan is that everyone thinks it does and micro was just fine with the lag and that lag is pretty much near the lag set for battl.net servers in the US currently, ture in a modern lan set up you could probably set a game like sc2 latency for lan to be sub 50ms without issue but do you need it? sc1 was great without it.
|
But why wouldn't Blizzard try to get latency to be as low as possible? Is it because they'd feel threatened by the fact the latency of some third-party global-LAN program might be better and compare favorably to b.net? The right course of action seems to me to be to get low latency themselves and get an option for direct p2p if people wish for it.
|
|
|
On May 02 2010 17:54 DrSmoke wrote:
lan is dead
for blizzard it is...
|
On May 02 2010 16:05 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 16:00 Zed03 wrote: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 What? Where's the source of this? Last time I heard they are present at release.
It has been confirmed that they will have chat channels in the retail version o.o Its just that they didnt want to include that feature in the beta to make people play instead of being social
|
I actually won't miss LAN because of actual LAN play, but mostly because it enabled things like Hamachi. The Latency on Bnet is killing me and I can't even leave games in the first 30 seconds if the connections is horrible.
|
In recent interviews blizz has said there's some sort of 'tournament patch' coming. I have to believe this is to help alleviate these issues.
|
I'm still blown away by Blizzard's audacity, talking about Bnet 2.0 as if it was some kind of revolutionary platform, when its actually just Steam.
|
On May 02 2010 17:44 Mothxal wrote:
But why wouldn't Blizzard try to get latency to be as low as possible?
its expensive probably. lower latency = more bandwidth
SC1 LAN is 100 Latency btw.
SC2 Bnet latency has been reduced down to 125 per one of the recent interviews.
|
The poll was not needed, it was always going to be one sided. Just to play devils advocate, it is important to realise the reasons for making games go through battle.net wasn't to punish people who wanted to LAN with their friends, or to punish LAN tournaments. They understand and accept that LAN > B.net (even with a supreme connection). The most likely reason is that they want to keep control of professional leagues trying to utilize SC2 (Look at the recent Kespa fallout) in addition to combating piracy. For these two corporate reasons (with no negative inflection meant) there will be little chance of seeing LAN. I want LAN too, but I fully support and agree with Blizzard's reasoning for keeping with B.net.
|
On May 02 2010 18:30 aloT wrote:
The poll was not needed, it was always going to be one sided. Just to play devils advocate, it is important to realise the reasons for making games go through battle.net wasn't to punish people who wanted to LAN with their friends, or to punish LAN tournaments. They understand and accept that LAN > B.net (even with a supreme connection). The most likely reason is that they want to keep control of professional leagues trying to utilize SC2 (Look at the recent Kespa fallout) in addition to combating piracy. For these two corporate reasons (with no negative inflection meant) there will be little chance of seeing LAN. I want LAN too, but I fully support and agree with Blizzard's reasoning for keeping with B.net.
They should check out what happened to other games which excluded LAN, like Modern Warfare 2 where no ones play competitively. I fear the same thing will happen to SC2 and there won't even be any SC2 tournaments needed. I mean if you add up all the step backs Blizzard is doing for E-sports is it even worth playing competitively SC2? No LAN, fee for hosting Tournaments, no cross way connect to other regions and the list goes on. What if everyone just went back to playing SC1 happily as before just cause the E-sport aspect and valid feeling to it.
I'm sure that Battle.net 2.0 will be flooded the first few months or even the first year. But after a while it'll be dead. "Fancy new Battle.net 2.0 running" empty. Sure hope that would open some eyes.
But by then they sure has made their cut already. 
|
You don't do a big prize money event with a game without LAN support, it's that simple. Imagine playing in a $50,000 grand final and you start lagging, yeah...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
