|
On May 03 2010 01:57 Sent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 01:37 SichuanPanda wrote:
I love when people post stuff like this without evening thinking before they do so. Bnet 2.0 has a built in 100 MS latency so long as you are forced to log into it that latency will always be there, regardless of your connection speed. LAN will ALWAYS_ be better than over the internet, no matter how fast the connections get. People really need to learn the most basic stuff about networking before they start going off saying how 'most of us have broadband'. There is two things to a connection LATENCY and SPEED - these are independent of each other - latency being the time its takes to MAKE the connection speed being the time to takes to transfer a file once the connection has been made. You can very easily have 1000 latency but download at 600 KBPS once the connection is made. Latency is what affects play in video games, and lets be honest here, lower is always better. So your issue isn't with having LAN capabilities it's the latency you're concerned with? /shrug
playing over a lan means it's not necessary to have a 100ms delay in unit commands to maintain consistency, it can be erased or dropped to something like 5ms because ping over a lan is going to be extremely low -- like, 0-3ms. the response time is much faster and makes for a much more enjoyable and competitive experience than 100ms on battle.net. 100ms is great and all, but it's not lan.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 03 2010 01:57 Sent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 01:37 SichuanPanda wrote:
I love when people post stuff like this without evening thinking before they do so. Bnet 2.0 has a built in 100 MS latency so long as you are forced to log into it that latency will always be there, regardless of your connection speed. LAN will ALWAYS_ be better than over the internet, no matter how fast the connections get. People really need to learn the most basic stuff about networking before they start going off saying how 'most of us have broadband'. There is two things to a connection LATENCY and SPEED - these are independent of each other - latency being the time its takes to MAKE the connection speed being the time to takes to transfer a file once the connection has been made. You can very easily have 1000 latency but download at 600 KBPS once the connection is made. Latency is what affects play in video games, and lets be honest here, lower is always better. So your issue isn't with having LAN capabilities it's the latency you're concerned with? /shrug
+ You are safe from technical problems (such as bnet going down for maintenance).
|
On May 03 2010 02:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
+ You are safe from technical problems (such as bnet going down for maintenance).
Yes and this would be a massive concern for tournaments and such, and I can't see how Blizzard can ignore that. But from a regular player, LAN play doesn't concern me while the ability to play while in the same room is still there regardless.
|
LOL guys I wouldn't worry so much.
We all know that if Blizzard doesn't fix something up, some crazy genius modder out there will.
Who wants to bet that there's going to be some program called 'gerry459zLEETLAN.exe' floating about on the interwebs once the final version of SC2 is released?
=)
|
I wonder how fast an internet you would need to play a 4 player game. All that info has to go trough your wire, times four!
|
On May 03 2010 02:14 mynameisbean wrote:
LOL guys I wouldn't worry so much.
We all know that if Blizzard doesn't fix something up, some crazy genius modder out there will.
Who wants to bet that there's going to be some program called 'gerry459zLEETLAN.exe' floating about on the interwebs once the final version of SC2 is released?
=)
the worry is more that it looks like blizzard is going to be a real jerk about people modding sc2, specifically if it's modded specifically for events where money is involved that blizzard feels they're entitled to a portion of.
|
Blizzard will no doubt have some kind of Torny version of the game for tornaments, a local Bnet server or some such.
As for LAN at home for the 0.0000001% of people who would use it I am sure there will be some kind of hack released.
For the normal player Bnet 2.0 is great, no chat full of insults and racist comments and a nice match making system.
And also SC2 is still in Beta so any comments as to it's performance should be directed to bnet forums to inform the developers.
|
Blizzard made many poor decisions concerning the way Bnet and SC2 work. It's the first time I'm *not* fully satisfied with their product.
|
its kind of ridiculous to have to be on bnet to play friends in the same place. my internet disconnects a lot, its really annoying. so ill be playing my friend on bnet LAN, and we will get dced in the middle of a game, even though we are on the same gosh darn switch. our connection should have nothing to do with my internet, and it doesnt make sense from a user experience standpoint to force that on to people.
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
B.net 2.0 is a value grab. It is categorically worse than WC3 B.net "1.0". The only people who consider it an improvement are Blizzard's stakeholders.
My prediction: Game will be hacked for LAN play, or equivalent. KESPA will host tons of tournaments of the hacked version. Blizzard will try to go after them; the Korean courts will tell Blizzard to gtfo.
|
On May 03 2010 02:18 supertino wrote:
For the normal player Bnet 2.0 is great, no chat full of insults and racist comments and a nice match making system.
user1337: D/D+ PYTHON MSG
user1337: D/D+ PYTHON MSG
user1337: D/D+ PYTHON MSG
lamejerk: desti D++ gogogo
user1337: D/D+ PYTHON MSG
user1337: D/D+ PYTHON MSG
Blizzard said there will be a lobby for the release.
|
I'm gonna miss the community organized LAN tournaments if they don't bring it back.
|
Singapore147 Posts
LAN will always be better because the lag will be lower. Blizzard really screwed everyone over by not adding it.
|
Also this quote just makes me angry - basically equivocating people who want LAN with "people who pull wings off butterflies" - What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Show nested quote +-How do you think that the removal of LAN play will affect the game's popularity, especially in tournament situations where you can't have 50 people on one DSL connection, or less-developed areas where broadband is restricted?
The question really is, for us... I feel like broadband is available in a lot of places. Most of our users are already able to connect via broadband, and if you don't have broadband your online gaming experience is probably suffering on its own already. We're trying to create a stronger internet community, to encourage people to play on the internet, which is how it's meant to be played: With achievements, with the matchmaker, with your friends - you can see them if you're logged on wherever you are in the world.
We've found that certainly for us, StarCraft is a vastly superior experience when playing against someone of equal skill as you, and that might not be your friends. It's much, much more fun when you're being matchmade against someone with your skill level, and believe me, that's something we've been working on perfecting in StarCraft II. In the beta, we're still ironing out all the kinks but you almost always feel like you should be matched against somebody of your skill level, who can play at the level you can play at. In StarCraft, if you're playing someone who is better or worse than you, it really loses some of its teeth.
Sure, there'll always be someone who likes beating up on noobs, who likes pulling wings off butterflies, but that's not a fun experience. But by building a huge Battle.net community and bringing it together, we want to get them to play together. That was our goal from the beginning: to have everybody all on the same server, playing as one huge community.
I certainly hear the concerns about it, but it's something we're going to try and see how it goes, first.
I can't read that without imagining him shifting uncomfortably and blustering bullshit-noises.
Browder sees multiplayer as a chore. He's only interested in a singleplayer game, really. All the balance and unit issues and a majority of the WTF decisions for battle.net have been under his direction.
|
The solution is that for large scale tournaments blizzard can create a portable BNET 2.0 server and ship it to tournament organizers. It would simulate the LAN 0 latency experience while keeping LAN functionality out of the game. This and a variety of other solutions can keep progamers out of the standard BNET2.0 system without having LAN functionality in retail Starcraft 2.
|
On May 02 2010 15:46 Sent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 15:42 Ideas wrote:On May 02 2010 15:34 Ai52487963 wrote:
I thought the final game was supposed to have an offline mode similar to a LAN that was accessible only after you validated though b.net this was just speculation by people who think blizzard actually cares enough to do that how could ANYONE vote yes on this poll rofl as someone who LANs with BW almost every week, it TOTALLY SUCKS that there's no LAN  single worst part about SC2, even worse than zerg being boring Bring a switch? Problem solved? When I LANed SC1, very few of us had broadband. Times have changed?
watch tournament in china
offline tournament with HORRIBLE lag nearly unplayable ...
and thats on an offline tournament LOL
|
I have played games with no lan support that had hosted tournaments on Korean TV.
The developer gave them a special build of the game with LAN support. I think that is a workable solution if you like paying licensing fees.
And games are only fun if you get to play with your friends. Clearly Bowder is a huge nerd with no friends who played games in his parent's basement or something, I dont know how he could even think that would be believable.
|
It s gonna be a major problem if we want to have SC2 at WCG or event of the same type (not to mention all the local/national lan events).
LAN is important for a competitive community becasue you get to meet other good players/people in real life.
My LAN experiences are among the best I ve ever had. Sure BNet isnt that bad. But i like to play 2v2 and there is not a single game without unexplicable lag spikes.
As for the channel being racits and BM, i agree they are. But Blizzard put a filiter inside BNet 2.0 that seems to work nicely. Plus having channels is good when you have a clan. I prefer to have my clan channel on bnet rather than having to alt tab to IRC or use Teamspeak with 10+ members on...
|
On May 03 2010 02:35 TossFloss wrote:
B.net 2.0 is a value grab. It is categorically worse than WC3 B.net "1.0". The only people who consider it an improvement are Blizzard's stakeholders.
QFT
|
On May 03 2010 02:08 Sent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 02:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
+ You are safe from technical problems (such as bnet going down for maintenance).
Yes and this would be a massive concern for tournaments and such, and I can't see how Blizzard can ignore that. But from a regular player, LAN play doesn't concern me while the ability to play while in the same room is still there regardless.
It is true that many regular players will be completely fine without LAN.
However, for regular, non-tournament players the current situation still makes it much harder than it should be to invite a few guys over to your house and have a good time playing SC2 with them.
So there are issues pretty much across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
