EPTBnet 2.0 replacing LAN - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
juggurnot
United States14 Posts
| ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
Radiomouse
Netherlands209 Posts
Totally ignoring the entire tournament side of this, which kind of needs lan play as well, those two reasons are utter bullshit. Not implementing lanplay because people who don't have broadband won't have fun playing games anyway? Or determining what we can and can't do because some people might not find it fun?(hej, heres an idea, the people who don't like to get bashed by their friends in a lan setting can just not go to a lan!). I'm suprised they allowed for custom games to be created with these reasonings, i mean, with custom games you're actually circumventing their precious matchmaking! Obviously you're not playing the game the way they want you to! | ||
|
Level10Peon
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
mullinmm
United States21 Posts
SC2 is currently in its beta phase. That we should scream and bitch and get every concession that we possibly can out of Blizzard as a player community - this is precisely what we should be doing, is it not? If Blizzard doesn't want this kind of input, they can shove it. Though they have set up the beta so that we can help them make the game better for them, I participate in the beta to make the game better for me and people like me, not for Blizzard. When it comes down to it, I can't imagine that anyone else in the beta isn't acting in the same essential way. So; No LAN blows! Legitimate question: how do we get Blizzard to put LAN back in? Continue bitching? Continue bitching, but do it in a more organized fashion? Has anyone put any thought into this, beyond making new threads which confirm that everyone hates this omission? | ||
|
Lollersauce
United States357 Posts
On May 03 2010 07:23 mullinmm wrote: "stop bitching, get used to it or go play SC1" Just a bunch of young hipster gamers paid for 100% by mommy and daddy who really don't have a clue about what it's like to go from consumer to actor. Most of them have no clue about what happened in the star wars tournament, most of them probably have never tried to organize an event. That or they are so spoiled/clueless they can't imagine one connection (even broadband) having problems accomodating a huge LAN. Yeah, the average gamer is definitely a lot dumber now than in the 90's. That's what you get when the masses join in. "DUURRRRR LAN IS SO 90'S DURRRR" Scene kids.. seriously... | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
I never really had to rely on LAN a whole lot my self, but I do understand its importance. | ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
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. yeah, you're right ...... blizzard people are so obsessed of "stopping" 3rd party sites where people play broodwar - i mean ICCUP and similar - that they made this no-LAN shit rule. The reality is, there will be LAN in sc2, because some kind of server emulator will arise, and people WILL play sc2 on pirate server, wether they bought the game or not. BTW, i am buying this game, have already preordered it, and i encourage every1 reading this to do so. So, the only ones who will be affected are the honest customers, who cannot install a emulator, even with a proper guide. So, LAN parties will get affected, people will suffer, while the "pirates" will find a workaround, like they always have By that time, Blizzard will just introduce LAN, like they introduced the possibility to play without the CD for BroodWar. Every chance to protect this game from hackers is futile. I mean, look at Assassin's Creed 2. It requires internet connection to play in single player, and some group managed to crack that. So Blizzard, please, don't make this harder on all of us, just release the goddam game with fucking LAN support ! | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On May 03 2010 07:53 Lollersauce wrote: Just a bunch of young hipster gamers paid for 100% by mommy and daddy who really don't have a clue about what it's like to go from consumer to actor. Most of them have no clue about what happened in the star wars tournament, most of them probably have never tried to organize an event. That or they are so spoiled/clueless they can't imagine one connection (even broadband) having problems accomodating a huge LAN. Yeah, the average gamer is definitely a lot dumber now than in the 90's. That's what you get when the masses join in. "DUURRRRR LAN IS SO 90'S DURRRR" Scene kids.. seriously... Agreed. I don't understand why people think its the cool thing to do, just buy into whatever plans a developer has for its games regardless of how absurd it is. LAN was a major selling point of SC1, but in SC2 it's not? That doesn't make any sense. Even if everyone had a very fast connection, latency is determined by the number of hops (search traceroute hops in google for explanation - essentially each computer, server, router you pass through is a 'hop' - a good hop time is < 15 MS) connection speed really does not improve latency all that much. Edit: Note that speed improves latency to a point, 56k obviously has bad latency because it is slow, but the second your connection passes the speed required for the game to have a smooth packet stream, the speed then becomes irrelevant. LAN ensures perfect latency every time, and for competitive and just for fun tournaments alike, or hell for that matter, any kind of live play it is simply required. I'm not sure where people lost the understanding of the difference between latency and speed, but most video games probably take less than 256 KBPS up/down max to have an appropriately fast connection. However if it takes you 300 MS in hops to get a Blizzard server, and another 300 MS in hops to get to your opponent you effectively have 600 MS. Even if both you and your opponents connections have the lowest latency bnet allows - 100 MS that's still 200 MS when you account for two-way travel. That said it is clear that a 100% off-line LAN option is required, just because some people don't find a need for it doesn't make it a useless feature. If Blizzard's goal is to eliminate pirating then they need to implement a proper LAN option alongside BNET 2.0, not doing so is going to encourage people to hack the game and create their own LAN variant. Blizzard could simply implement the option to 'host locally' when you create a game over BNET. All players will log into BNET, and connect to your game through BNET. Once connection is made BNET will transfer you to a true LAN connection. Moreover, BNET should always transfer you to the fastest possible network available in that if you are playing with someone who lives on the same street as you, they will likely be able to connect to you faster via local networks than over BNET. This will have the implementation Blizzard wants in terms of having to authenticate with BNET before playing, while at the same time satisfy the need for true LAN support. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
Radiomouse wrote: just to summarize, the 'official' reason they're giving for not implementing lanplay is because:"everyone should have broadband and if you don't you're screwed" combined with "playing online is better than playing offline with friends, because you might be way better or worse than your friends and stomping noobs/getting stomped is not fun. And we don't allow you to have fun with that"? SichuanPanda wrote: Even if both you and your opponents connections have the lowest latency bnet allows - 100 MS that's still 200 MS when you account for two-way travel. That said it is clear that a 100% off-line LAN option is required, just because some people don't find a need for it doesn't make it a useless feature. If Blizzard's goal is to eliminate pirating then they need to implement a proper LAN option alongside BNET 2.0, not doing so is going to encourage people to hack the game and create their own LAN variant. Blizzard could simply implement the option to 'host locally' when you create a game over BNET. All players will log into BNET, and connect to your game through BNET. Once connection is made BNET will transfer you to a true LAN connection. Moreover, BNET should always transfer you to the fastest possible network available in that if you are playing with someone who lives on the same street as you, they will likely be able to connect to you faster via local networks than over BNET. Exactly. The largest insult to Blizzards fans/customers would be not to include LAN. Starcraft and BW were not kept alive solely by Blizzard, the community and all the people who love(d) Starcraft and BW kept it going for so long. LAN is needed for a SERIOUS competitive scene. It is already beta and there are tons of streams, tourneys and other competitive stuff going on. Watching casts you can see there are tons of lag issues and other small beta problems. You HAVE to listen to the community if you intend on creating another master piece, the small tole on your wallets early on is nothing to the years and years of Starcraft 2 dominance as the most played, competitive RTS, and Esport. | ||
|
DiffyQ
United States12 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? Not having SC2 LAN affects everyone -- from the D+ players who will never see a tournament to the top progamers in the world. This is an obvious point, but it needs to be said because it's so important. One of the main reasons BW has endured so well is because it is so damn fun to watch. Watching VODS and replays of top players has kept so many people interested in starcraft long after they have stopped playing it themselves, or even got people back into the game after years of hiatus. When that ultra-high level tournament scene suffers these epic games can't happen, and we all suffer. SC2 needs to be a spectator sport every bit as much as BW is. This can never happen no matter how well balanced the game is if there is no LAN capabilities. | ||
|
dNo_O
United States233 Posts
On May 03 2010 07:53 Lollersauce wrote: Just a bunch of young hipster gamers paid for 100% by mommy and daddy who really don't have a clue about what it's like to go from consumer to actor. Most of them have no clue about what happened in the star wars tournament, most of them probably have never tried to organize an event. That or they are so spoiled/clueless they can't imagine one connection (even broadband) having problems accomodating a huge LAN. Yeah, the average gamer is definitely a lot dumber now than in the 90's. That's what you get when the masses join in. "DUURRRRR LAN IS SO 90'S DURRRR" Scene kids.. seriously... QFT i can't believe how many people are into, "shut up! and let big brother tell you what you want in your video game!" | ||
|
mynameisbean
Australia82 Posts
Blizzard fucked up. BUT. If people are still pre-ordering/buying the game in large quantities, then why would they stop to try and change it? Taking out LAN = $$$ for Blizzard. They would only NOT take it out IF they saw that overall demand for the game was threatened. But it's not. So they'll do it anyway. It's our fault for needing to have the game more than needing LAN. | ||
|
Lollersauce
United States357 Posts
It's all downhill from here. I mean just look at the sorry excuse that is Bnet "2.0" without chat channels or LAN. But hey we get achievements for adding a friend to our friends list. AWESOME. | ||
|
oaax
Norway38 Posts
| ||
|
GreggSauce
United States566 Posts
You just have to port forward to play SC2 with multiple computers I had 6 on a router+switch battle.net is 90% perfectly replacing lan if they could have an option to "reduce latency as low as possible" it would be perfect | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
That last phrase may have tipped you as to why they're really removing LAN- because of the 'non-paying customers'. Yes, the issue is piracy alright. They've denied it in the past, but actions speak louder than words. Fans are clamoring for LAN, and yet Blizzard keeps mum about the issue if asked on an interview about it, and gives us, literally, bullshit as their official reason as to why they're not including LAN. They are hurting the consumer with this course of action; we know it, they know it, we know they know it. Why would they do something like this? For sales, and for profit. Digital Rights Management (DRM) on PC games has been a delicate issue, industry-wide. Some companies will screw paying customers over pretty hard with intrusive DRM. Blizzard is forcing you to play on Battle.net 2.0, or not play at all. Yes, it is a form of DRM. Yes, it leads to a worse user experience. Yes, Blizzard has given us a lot of crap to hide the fact that this basically amounts to their formula for DRM. Now that I have established that no LAN = SC2's DRM, I have mixed feelings about this decision. I certainly would like LAN functionality on SC2, so it kinda sucks that it won't be available. On the other hand, if they're taking it out because they're fairly sure it will mean more money for them, then that's not too bad. I mean, SC2 has to be a profitable product for Blizzard- Otherwise, they should just go ahead and dedicate all their work to WoW. I want companies that give me stuff I like to make money; it's a market reward mechanism that says, "Hey, I like what you're doing. Here, have some encouragement to give me more of it". Blizzard clearly wants to make money too, so they'll look after their own interests, and that's fine- as long as they stay in business and stay profitable, they'll continue to make great games for us. Ultimately, it's not my call, it's not your call, it's their call. They've already made this decision, and that's that. As a consumer, you only get one decision, one vote: vote with your wallet. Is SC2 worth US$60 to me, even without LAN functionality? Hell yes. | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
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. wut? You think you're going to have problems with drop/maphacks playing LAN with some friends in the basement?....i think you need some new friends man.... | ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
| ||
|
Gertkane
2 Posts
Wierd to say that fortunately we have people already working and making progress on BNET emulators for SC2 which will eventually mean that you can just set up your own emulated server just for LAN for playing with friends or for tournaments. Not the perfect solution but it is most likely the best we will get. | ||
| ||
