|
On May 02 2010 23:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 18:30 CowGoMoo wrote: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. Except that when playing on actual LAN you get just 100 ms, whereas when playing on BNet you get 125 ms PLUS extra delay caused by your connection. Hardly comparable.
Actually you get 125 if you're connection is slower i assume the code is written to adjust both players to the lowest possible.
The 125ms if a buffer, after that interval data is sent to the blizzard server and relayed to your opponent, and the opponent does the same. If in the time it takes for your info to go to the bliz server and relayed over to your opponent and your opponent doing the same is longer the 125ms you don't get the 125ms near sc1 style lan feel to it. If you are at 125 and under and assuming you don't have too many errors in the packets you sent you do get the 125ms, i get 125ms after some frame recording and testing it falls just under 125 consistently so ionno what you're talking about.
"its expensive probably. lower latency = more bandwidth"
Yes, it is expensive, according to the ppl who developed adv loader if you remember
sc1 is "1MB/h to 2.5MB/h" from reducing battle.net latency down from it's stock to lan latency, which imo wouldn't be too much of a problem if it was true peer to peer instead of just routed to the blizzard servers. :D
On May 03 2010 02:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 01:57 Sent wrote: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).
What FA is saying the only real valid point, under avg conditions is you are near enough to the server and playing someone on the same connection the latency shouldn't be an issue, but what could be an issue is your isp and blizzard servers gunking things up.
Consistency in quality is what lan delivers not nesscarly lower latency in this case.
On May 03 2010 02:48 pigscanfly wrote:
LAN will always be better because the lag will be lower. Blizzard really screwed everyone over by not adding it.
nope not if blizzard makes the lan with 150ms which they can if they wanted to, ofc ppl will just hack it to lower the built in latency to something more along the lines of 50ms and hell if bother of them have decent computer with a good router and nic cards maybe they can do 30ms.
lan in sc1 was 100ms lag on iccup is 100ms quality of the connection determines the lag lan is bound to be consistency better at delivering data then the Internet.
On May 03 2010 02:37 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Personally i like the d2 bots better shouting trivia! Chat rooms filled with only ppl who want to raise their rank is boring.
|
I have a couple of friends that are twins, they have been having extreme amount of issues trying to connect at b.net at the same time, and Blizzard wants this to replace LAN? What about when 4 people want to connect to bnet 2.0 at the same time?
Have big LANs been having any issues with the connections?
What a disgrace. "We are replacing lan with a required connection to our system for the game you paid full price for."
Just fantastic. I plan on having a LAN a day after the game comes out, but I don't even know if Bnet 2.0 can handle it.
|
Why don't you guys get off the 100 kbps stolen wireless and get with the times.
Lan is the past and 99% of people are not going to miss it. This isn't the 90s anymore lan is dead, get over it already.
I have a real internet connection and get about 0 lag on bnet, so i don't know what your problems are. I think some people just want something to bitch about.
No sc2 will not have lan support, it also will not play on an atari, so what?
|
A clear no in my opinion. Even if they improve bnet 2.0 there will definitely be times when I would like to play with my friends on LAN. I go to a lot of local LAN parties and the internet connection usually goes down at some point...
|
On May 03 2010 04:56 DrSmoke wrote:
Why don't you guys get off the 100 kbps stolen wireless and get with the times.
Lan is the past and 99% of people are not going to miss it.
I guarantee more than 1% of people will be missing LAN. Anyway, its not just about your internet speed. If you want to create your own little network to play a game, you should be able to without relying on their server for everything.
On May 03 2010 04:56 DrSmoke wrote:
This isn't the 90s anymore lan is dead, get over it already.
I have a real internet connection and get about 0 lag on bnet, so i don't know what your problems are. I think some people just want something to bitch about.
People have plenty to bitch about without LAN. LAN is something that will continue to be prevalent as long as there are computers so why dont you learn a little bit about computer networking.
|
Everyone lives next to Battle.net's datacenters, really they do.
Having lag playing with local people on the same local node is bad no matter which way you put it, there was even lag simply being on Battle.net in a game by yourself before.
|
On May 02 2010 15:54 No_Roo wrote:
Just putting this out there, but have you considered playing SC2 hotseat? Disconnect in that situation seems pretty unlikely.
Might as well play the game 100% in speech.
Rock paper scissors to see who goes first. Then:
"I open with 10 barracks reaper."
"I scout your early refinery and go 9 pylon 11 gate"
"I kill 3 of your probes with my first reaper"
You get the picture.
Anyone want to play snail mail SC2 with me?
"I random into 6pool"
|
On May 03 2010 05:05 Hunter_Killers wrote:
Everyone lives next to Battle.net's datacenters, really they do.
Having lag playing with local people on the same local node is bad no matter which way you put it, there was even lag simply being on Battle.net in a game by yourself before.
Well US and Europe i don't see any issue but oceanic and Asia might have some issues of not being close to a server. but if you can play iccup you can play battle.net. and iccup is worse for most people in the us and Europe becuase its like east coast or something only one server while blizzard will have more then one.
|
On May 02 2010 15:35 Kegs.aus wrote:
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.
I hope this guy is getting paid by blizzard.
|
really gay , i used to go to my country place and bring a few computers and lan there since we dont have internet there. now i cant even open sc2 without a connection, really really weak....
|
On May 02 2010 23:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: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 +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.
LOL Tell the consumer what's fun instead of listening to the consumer tell you what's fun. That's a great business model.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 03 2010 04:56 DrSmoke wrote:
Why don't you guys get off the 100 kbps stolen wireless and get with the times.
Lan is the past and 99% of people are not going to miss it. This isn't the 90s anymore lan is dead, get over it already.
I have a real internet connection and get about 0 lag on bnet, so i don't know what your problems are. I think some people just want something to bitch about.
No sc2 will not have lan support, it also will not play on an atari, so what?
You are either trolling or being an idiot. Either way, please stop.
I shouldn't even have to explain this, but just looking at how the lack of LAN caused massive lag at a LAN tournament in China last month is reason enough to include it.
|
I just had a friend over for a few sc2 1vs1 matches and we didn't have any problems with latency. I think most people have latency problems because their equipment (router/network device) doesn't suffice.
I voted "no" because one can't always be in a place that allows for multiple connections to battle.net. Also, the idea that no LAN support will stop piracy is stupid. The beta already showed that a simple sandbox will be enough to get into single player and I certainly remember 3 guys whom I showed BW and who bought the game afterwards (we didn't have internet there!).
|
LAN should be included, but I definitely see why they did. I'd say its the lesser of two evils really.
|
On May 03 2010 04:56 DrSmoke wrote:
Why don't you guys get off the 100 kbps stolen wireless and get with the times.
Lan is the past and 99% of people are not going to miss it. This isn't the 90s anymore lan is dead, get over it already.
I have a real internet connection and get about 0 lag on bnet, so i don't know what your problems are. I think some people just want something to bitch about.
No sc2 will not have lan support, it also will not play on an atari, so what?
Please do not talk about "99%" of people unless you know every single poster on TL personally and then some. Rob Pardo tried to make the same inference during Blizzcon 2009 making some kind of joke about how lans were a thing of the past and asked if anyone would still miss it. What happened? The crowd exploded in protest and screaming and Pardo choked on his words and had to change tactics. (lookin for a youtube link but not finding the exact moment) Just because you're too lazy to get a lan together and enjoy the company of your friends while gaming doesn't mean that's the same case with everyone else.
|
On May 03 2010 04:56 DrSmoke wrote:
Why don't you guys get off the 100 kbps stolen wireless and get with the times.
Lan is the past and 99% of people are not going to miss it. This isn't the 90s anymore lan is dead, get over it already.
I have a real internet connection and get about 0 lag on bnet, so i don't know what your problems are. I think some people just want something to bitch about.
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when you bring up 100kbps and your 'real internet connection' because ping times have almost nothing to do with bandwidth and are typically dependent solely on routing.
how is lan in the past? ALL big money tournaments are still done on lan for every competitive game (the only exceptions with prizes over $3k i can think of were TSL 1 and 2)
|
On May 03 2010 05:24 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 23:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: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? 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. LOL Tell the consumer what's fun instead of listening to the consumer tell you what's fun. That's a great business model.
Right, that quote is just a really dumb thing to say on their part. I'm a pretty competitive player and I consider playing with my friends WAY more fun than playing with random people.
|
SC1 latency was pretty bad. Especially when all the 3v3 games I want to play, it lags unless people set it to extra high latency right off the bat, which will always happen.
|
On May 03 2010 06:00 chung wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 05:24 madsweepslol wrote:On May 02 2010 23:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: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? 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. LOL Tell the consumer what's fun instead of listening to the consumer tell you what's fun. That's a great business model. Right, that quote is just a really dumb thing to say on their part. I'm a pretty competitive player and I consider playing with my friends WAY more fun than playing with random people.
THIS!!!!
Why punish people who actually BUY THE GAME, because of the people who dont!
seems a little fishy to me................
|
On May 03 2010 02:15 Navane wrote:
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!
No. It only has to go through once, unless Blizzard was really, really stupid with their implementation. If you want more info, look up multicast on Wikipedia.
On May 03 2010 06:02 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
SC1 latency was pretty bad. Especially when all the 3v3 games I want to play, it lags unless people set it to extra high latency right off the bat, which will always happen.
What's even better, is when people set the network to "Extra High Latency" under the thinking that "Extra High" = "Better." I even had to explain the concept to some of my engineering major friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
