|
On August 24 2010 01:23 generic88 wrote:
If someone comes out with a 3rd party LAN "hack" and people use it or tournaments use it, can Blizzard take any sort of legal action against them? If so, what justification would they use?
They could likely take legal actions against you just for making a tournament with cash prizes or sponsors involved and wasn't sanctionned by Blizzard, however at the moment, for Blizzards legal team to go after these guys would be silly considering that most of them are free advertising for the game.
Not saying someone should make such a hack, but they wouldn't be lacking in legal grounds to get at you if you decided to start showboating that you did.
|
If they would add this cracked versions with lan would appear after max few days.
There is no cracked lan yet because of two reasons:
- making battle.net emulator need a lot of hard work because it needs lot of package analysis and also rewriting server from scratch
- the most promising groups that have been showing off too much an actually were on the good way to make working emulator were sued by blizzard
If the lan would be included just unlocking it would be much easier (downloadable as patch , update or preincluded or even accessible only through battle.net ... doesn't matter at all)
Don't forget that lan could also allow cross region play and Activizzard would not like it cause lack of cross region gives them more money.
And seriously, things like no cross region play , lack of ability to resell game ( when you decide that you don't like it or just it don't work for you), letting more ppl use hacks by not banning from the beginning ...
none of those helps in preventing piracy nor make game better. It's all about taking as much money as possible from every customer and for less....
We even actually don't get game , just ability to play on poor battlenet 2.0 servers that can be taken from us anytime.
|
On August 24 2010 01:13 Jarvs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 01:01 ta2 wrote:
I thought that once two players had been matched, the game is based on a p2p system. Surely it should be a simple job of packet sniffing the matchmaking process, and building an external client to facilitate this? This is entirely wrong. Blizzard hosts every game, even custom games. There is no p2p system in sc2. I'm one of the Aussies who has 500ms to the SEA server. I wouldn't be so upset if I didn't also get 500ms to every custom game as well. I even get 500ms to my own host.
If you are running into 500+ ms playing on the SEA servers, you might want to check with your local network settings or your ISP... Custom games being P2P I guess would cut the lag to you, but everyone else in the game you would have been hosting would be lagging fairly badly.
|
On August 24 2010 01:27 Furycrab wrote:
If this were 1999 maybe even in the early 2000s, you might have a case that a game releasing without lan support hurts the players.
95%+ (just an imagined stat just to say "most" but so someone doesn't come back to me saying that well alot of players still need lan) will go thru an entire year of this game without feeling the incline or need for lan support or go to an event that doesn't have some Net support over the Lan.
Technical difficulties and server problems happen even with Lan support, and while the odds of having problems with connecting to a Battle.net server are higher than say a power outage or a network node going out (and these things have happened, check Flash Vs Jaedong at one of last years events) in 2010, the odds are well in the tolerable range, and getting closer and closer to the odds of hardware failure.
On the subject of live events and lag... It can become an issue, but at the same time the odds of these issues are quickly becoming lower and lower (in scale they are getting closer to the odds of Hardware issues) and if it helps them slow down or discourage piracy, I'm all for it...
Why? Because the next possible step in the evolution of Bnet, is to start charging for usage of the servers. Which obviously would meet many objections, but if Battle.net and starcraft as a whole becomes too expensive to run because of piracy or because they to hire to many moderators for the chat channels to keep the game profitable... They might have their hand forced, and I'd rather they just not get to that point and be happy with all the cool stuff they give me just for the entry fee.
AS mentioned, if people want something cracked, unfortunately it gets done.
Battle.net is nothing evolutionary, it's actually pretty dumbed down from Wc3 BNET imo. There's so little control given to the user.
I think the problem with having a LAN system were you log in is that you'd still have to be connected to the internet for them to check that you're online. I don't know for sure because I don't have much experience with network coding 
|
Saw the word HoN, stopped reading.
|
I think it should automatically save the game when someone's is disconecting, this way you could at least continue the game, it super easy to do and i dont know what is the reason of this not being at the lauch of the game.
|
On August 24 2010 01:33 Glacierz wrote:
Simply require the user to log on b.net before each LAN game would solve the problem, no?
That's why I'm stating actually.
|
If they implement LAN mode that requires bnet login it would be very very easy to use emulated bnet servers for multiplayer games.
|
Don't forget that lan could also allow cross region play and Activizzard would not like it cause lack of cross region gives them more money.
And seriously, things like no cross region play , lack of ability to resell game ( when you decide that you don't like it or just it don't work for you), letting more ppl use hacks by not banning from the beginning ...
none of those helps in preventing piracy nor make game better. It's all about taking as much money as possible from every customer and for less....
We even actually don't get game , just ability to play on poor battlenet 2.0 servers that can be taken from us anytime.
Sky is falling much? Breathe a little.
You are right on the first part, emulating blizzards server is difficult, and having the resources to do so will likely get you sued. Unlocking LAN takes away all that work and makes it possible to emulate entire pirated Bnet servers.
On X regions... Ever play a 4v4 game for fun (or even 3v3) with one guy who has a computer that clearly can't support the game? It lags, alot... Now explode that problem to the tenth power by making it so that everyone can jump into any server. Add language barriers which further increase the amount of insulting and people spamming LAGGGG in various languages... and eventually the random matchmaking just stops being fun anymore.
Sure with the Xregion barriers they make a little more money with players who decide to play on multiple servers, but this little extra money is a drop of water in what is Blizzard, the only reason those barriers are up are to keep the majority of games civil and lag free.
|
On August 24 2010 01:49 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 01:13 Jarvs wrote:On August 24 2010 01:01 ta2 wrote:
I thought that once two players had been matched, the game is based on a p2p system. Surely it should be a simple job of packet sniffing the matchmaking process, and building an external client to facilitate this? This is entirely wrong. Blizzard hosts every game, even custom games. There is no p2p system in sc2. I'm one of the Aussies who has 500ms to the SEA server. I wouldn't be so upset if I didn't also get 500ms to every custom game as well. I even get 500ms to my own host. If you are running into 500+ ms playing on the SEA servers, you might want to check with your local network settings or your ISP... Custom games being P2P I guess would cut the lag to you, but everyone else in the game you would have been hosting would be lagging fairly badly.
Custom games are most definitely not p2p.
The only exception is when you play by yourself, but that can't exactly be p2p anyway, since there's no other peer(s).
|
i just think how bad it would be if blizzard decide to publish some patch while some major tourney is going... Like you go 5 rax reaper, boom, they removed reaper in patch, cya, gg.
|
In my opinion, it doesn't sound the issue for Blizzard is so much how to implement LAN play while preventing pirates from cracking the game for multiplayer. Sure, sounds like a nice idea to implement LAN capabilities with the safeguard of needing a bnet account to use it, but regardless how it's done, LAN play will only take away from Blizzard's control over SC2 as someone mentioned before.
Now I don't really know what to make of the new Activision Blizzard, but the fact is Blizzard is still a company at heart, and maintaining profits dictates the direction to take. Maybe if the lack of LAN play driving away most of the playerbase might force Blizzard's hand, but at the moment it looks almost all people are still willing to deal with a LAN-less SC2, assuming they even care. Implementing LAN on the other hand would allow more private control over the multiplayer aspect of the game, denying possible profit opportunities for Blizzard, such as from tournaments. Hosting everything from their severs just gives the ability to call pretty much all the shots. And even if they figure out the proper safeguards, once LAN has been implemented, pirates will have a heck of an easier time cracking SC2 as mentioned before, as they wouldn't need to completely emulate bnet on a private server...they can simply figure out how to bypass any checks to unlock LAN play...which I imagine would be harder for Blizzard to deal with.
Still...LAN would definitely be nice.
|
On August 24 2010 01:32 unAimed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 00:53 Necrosjef wrote: SC2 has already been cracked for multiplayer play and it hasn't even been released for a month. - Case and point right there. If someone wants to steal software, they are gonna. source? First time I heard mp is cracked - or did you mean sp?
No MP is cracked. It is circulating now on members only pirating sites, just a matter of time though before it reaches warez bb or something similar and everyone has it.
Not really comfortable giving sources on TL as I would rather not be banned so I guess you will just need to trust me that it has been cracked.
|
On August 24 2010 01:57 EffectS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 01:33 Glacierz wrote:
Simply require the user to log on b.net before each LAN game would solve the problem, no? That's why I'm stating actually.
It makes no difference to hackers, they skip the login check anyway.
The obvious example showing this is that you got to log on battle.net at least once before you can play single player and the single player was cracked on release day.
|
No LAN for controlling tournaments is a great idea. They can just boot KESPA off of their servers if KESPA tries to host tournies without permission. If KESPA tries to use a cracked LAN... well they are using an illegal product and will get shut down even harder.
Also note that Blizzard didn't go crazy on their protection or anything. It is certainly possible to lock pirates out of a game, but at a large price to performance and functionality. For example, Starforce locked pirates out of cracking Splinter Cell for 424 days according to wikipedia. That's probably more than the effective lifetime of the game (ie everyone who was going to buy it already bought it).
Personally I havn't had a problem without LAN, BNET could use more control over the interface (too simple IMO) and I am grateful that blizzard didn't go overboard on protection and screw a bunch of legitimate customers from being able to play the game.
|
On August 24 2010 02:06 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +Don't forget that lan could also allow cross region play and Activizzard would not like it cause lack of cross region gives them more money.
And seriously, things like no cross region play , lack of ability to resell game ( when you decide that you don't like it or just it don't work for you), letting more ppl use hacks by not banning from the beginning ...
none of those helps in preventing piracy nor make game better. It's all about taking as much money as possible from every customer and for less....
We even actually don't get game , just ability to play on poor battlenet 2.0 servers that can be taken from us anytime. Sky is falling much? Breathe a little. You are right on the first part, emulating blizzards server is difficult, and having the resources to do so will likely get you sued. Unlocking LAN takes away all that work and makes it possible to emulate entire pirated Bnet servers. On X regions... Ever play a 4v4 game for fun (or even 3v3) with one guy who has a computer that clearly can't support the game? It lags, alot... Now explode that problem to the tenth power by making it so that everyone can jump into any server. Add language barriers which further increase the amount of insulting and people spamming LAGGGG in various languages... and eventually the random matchmaking just stops being fun anymore. Sure with the Xregion barriers they make a little more money with players who decide to play on multiple servers, but this little extra money is a drop of water in what is Blizzard, the only reason those barriers are up are to keep the majority of games civil and lag free.
You are so wrong, if I want to , I can play any server and lag anywhere I want. The only thing is that i need to pay for every single region.
So basically not take ability to play anywhere you want but make you pay more if you want to play in more than one region.
Simple solution would be not allowing players with too big lag to play some games ( for example ladder or ability to block high ping players to your custom game) or simply block them from logging to server ( if its not region that they bought).
|
On August 24 2010 01:49 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 01:13 Jarvs wrote:On August 24 2010 01:01 ta2 wrote:
I thought that once two players had been matched, the game is based on a p2p system. Surely it should be a simple job of packet sniffing the matchmaking process, and building an external client to facilitate this? This is entirely wrong. Blizzard hosts every game, even custom games. There is no p2p system in sc2. I'm one of the Aussies who has 500ms to the SEA server. I wouldn't be so upset if I didn't also get 500ms to every custom game as well. I even get 500ms to my own host. If you are running into 500+ ms playing on the SEA servers, you might want to check with your local network settings or your ISP... Custom games being P2P I guess would cut the lag to you, but everyone else in the game you would have been hosting would be lagging fairly badly.
There is nothing wrong with my internet connection. I'm just one of the unfortunate people with an ISP that routes through North America before hitting SEA giving me an absurb ping. If hosting games were P2P then I'd be able to host comfortably for other Aussies and NZ players but people residing in SEA would still suffer the 500ms. If another Australian were to host with a good connection to the SEA server, then everyone would be happy. I'd get a low ping to the host and the SEA person would get a (slighly higher but albeit) low ping to the host as well. As it currently stands this is not possible.
Dead are the days of a neutral host.
To get back on track a little. If my housemate and I wanted to practice, we'd get 500ms to our games as Bnet2.0 hosts. The only way for me to practice/compete for a tournament is to either change ISP or play at some other location.
|
On August 24 2010 00:53 Necrosjef wrote:
The guys cracking the stuff are much smarter than the guys trying to stop them.
Not really. It's just easier to destroy than it is to create.
|
What i was thinking about... making pvpgn (or any other, non-blizzard server program) able to run sc2 too?
I think sc2 CAN be legally modded to join my server, not battle.net (2.0). So no problem? Or im too optimist? Legally i meant like modify my internet trafic, so if the program wants to reach X, it will reach Y, which acts like bnet. I dont think Blizz forbids this in eula to alter MY trafic...
|
On August 24 2010 01:13 Jarvs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 01:01 ta2 wrote:
I thought that once two players had been matched, the game is based on a p2p system. Surely it should be a simple job of packet sniffing the matchmaking process, and building an external client to facilitate this? This is entirely wrong. Blizzard hosts every game, even custom games. There is no p2p system in sc2. I'm one of the Aussies who has 500ms to the SEA server. I wouldn't be so upset if I didn't also get 500ms to every custom game as well. I even get 500ms to my own host.
No you are actually "entirely wrong". The Blizzard server acts as a middle-man, that's it - it's hilariously lame. In fact middle-man is maybe giving too much credit, all it does is route all the data through the server to the other player(s). This is to protect the privacy (IP address) of each player, but aside from that it doesn't really do anything.
I'm not sure about custom games, but I'd have no clue why they'd be different from melee.
I think it should automatically save the game when someone's is disconnecting, this way you could at least continue the game, it super easy to do and I don't know what is the reason of this not being at the lauch of the game. Yes, I've always wanted the same thing even in Starcraft 2. I think it's ridiculous that things like this don't get implemented in competitive games, since it's so useful. Hell, even just a reconnect feature at all would be good.
With regards to saving, obviously it's pretty difficult to force a player to play a game where they were their opponent disconnected (why would you want to continue a game you won?), but in many cases it would still be desirable (tournaments, friends playing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
