|
Chill (1:38 July 05 KST): Discussing the cracked Bnet2 is acceptable in this thread.
DO NOT post any links to websites explaining how to install / use the crack.
DO NOT explain in your post how to install / use the crack.
Thank you. |
On July 05 2011 03:59 MavercK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... the difference is the route your connection takes to that server it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
Thats not how internet works.
|
On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
YES its better to have 1 server hosting 1 game than 1 servercluster hosting 1 million games....
this thread starts to get offtopic into basic network architecture....
|
On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right? Show nested quote +
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul.
currently
player A > battle.net server > player b
lan mode/direct connection
player A > player B
think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle.
yes i realise the internet doesn't work "as the crow flies" but an extra connection means more hops. which increases latency. THATS how the internet works
|
the sad thing about it is thats its only made to play the game without paying for it. The only thing it will achieve is that blizzard will probably not recruit some extra programmers since a bit of income is missing, in other words everyone supporting this thing will delay the diablo 3 release for a whole day!
and for every month of delayance the game will be 1 dollar more expensiv. Or it will be split in 3 parts !!!!
Oh right and it won't help with anything at all. Well for the one thinking that there will be lan support if all games are relased... people are still buying WoL after 1 year just to smurf... don't think they will add lan support after all expansions are out. And for tournaments only ? why ... they players will be totally screwed up in those tournaments with their timings as they are probably done to early. So they would need the lan system in their houses as well.
Just give up on that shitty lan and work on increasing the connections globally 
PS: me hates everyone making diablo 3 more costy
|
If this exists, then the game can be pirated now.
That means there's no reason for them not to give us an official LAN, since the current setup isn't saving them from piracy at all.
|
On July 05 2011 04:02 RoyalCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 03:59 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... the difference is the route your connection takes to that server it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast. Thats not how internet works.
What he means is that instead of going Computer->Battlenet->Computer, it goes Computer<->Computer directly.
This kind of setup would only really benefit real LANs(ie. MLG) not pseudo-LANs(Garena, Hamachi).
|
On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. yes i realise the internet doesn't work "as the crow flies" but an extra connection means more hops. which increases latency. THATS how the internet works
Ok, if you mean that two guys want to play against each other and against each other only, then you are correct. Sorry about my previous post
|
On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle.
bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice!
*using the Ukrainian/Korean example from before. I guess it could matter if you're out in the boondocks in the US or something.
|
On July 05 2011 03:44 RoyalCheese wrote:
Will be C&D-ed soon enough. And rightfully so.
Yes because China is really one of those contries which takes software piracy serious.
More realistic, one can hope that stuff like this will put some more pressure on blizzard, but i doubt that something they haven't thought of yet will come out. though they might shift resources, official tournament server like riot gaming is making before HoTS maybe?
|
On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference.
how fortunate for the guy living a few miles from seoul!
how blessed he must be
otherwise pointless post.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice!
That is all fine in theory.
In reality though Bnet2 latency is unplayable between EU and Kor. Certainly way worse than any direct connection. So you can argue theory all day, in reality it will be better with a direct connection, as shown by any other game that allows that.
So please stop arguing.
|
On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:30 ChickenLips wrote:
Ok, I'm a Korean Zerg and have to play a match in an online tourney with a Zerg from the Ukraine. We both have NA accounts so we try playing there but we both have so much lag that ling/bling micro becomes impossible and we're both getting frustrated. The match won't be broadcasted, we just have to send the replays.
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers. I mentioned the scenario anywho.
See the appeal? This happens very often and if they somehow got match-making to work with a decent map-pool, I'd certainly prefer it over Blizzard ladder because I can just make a ton of smurfs and try other races / new builds / weird strats without the fear of it affecting my ladder ranking that all my friends and practice partners see.
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice!
You've got zatic who has played BW on iCCup for years and he's telling you that the direct connection is playable but the one over BNet servers isn't, who are you to tell us that the added amount of latency isn't noticable? Just accept the fact that people here have actual experience in these matters compared to your useless theorycrafting.
edit: ugh, got ninja'd
|
I am glad when the internet shows companies that they can't take quite as much as they want.
|
On July 05 2011 04:08 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers.
I mentioned the scenario anywho.
[quote]
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice! That is all fine in theory. In reality though Bnet2 latency is unplayable between EU and Kor. Certainly way worse than any direct connection. So you can argue theory all day, in reality it will be better with a direct connection, as shown by any other game that allows that.
Well the thing is that you have no idea what latency is through "direct connect". You only have examples of broodwar which may or may not apply in SC2. Afaik BW didn't have built in latency, the protocol was different etc. You can't just say that "it worked for broodwar therefore it has to work for sc2"
|
On July 05 2011 04:08 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:On July 05 2011 03:34 Yaotzin wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think the latency would be any better? This thing is a crack, nothing more. It's still Blizzard's code. It just runs a server somewhere other than California or wherever Blizzard keeps their servers.
I mentioned the scenario anywho.
[quote]
Match making...? That isn't possible..You have to have a centralised server for matchmaking, and then you might as well use Blizzard's. 1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players. A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice! That is all fine in theory. In reality though Bnet2 latency is unplayable between EU and Kor. Certainly way worse than any direct connection.
The only difference between this and Bnet2 is that Bnet2 is now hosted on someone else's computer.
So you can argue theory all day, in reality it will be better with a direct connection, as shown by any other game that allows that.
So please stop arguing.
Stop saying stuff based on assumptions because of what happens in a different game.
|
It's basic networking that would work in SC2, but they didn't implement it because they went with the big brother netcode of central servers and disconnected regions that ostensibly rakes in more cash.
Edit: This isn't a subject like judging SC2 balance based off BW balance. You can find competent netcode in thousands of games, most of which came from studios smaller than Blizzard. BW is just the example closest to heart.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On July 05 2011 04:10 RoyalCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:08 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:36 ChickenLips wrote:
[quote]
1) Because they don't have to re-route through Blizzard's server, the connection is direct between the players.
A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice! That is all fine in theory. In reality though Bnet2 latency is unplayable between EU and Kor. Certainly way worse than any direct connection. So you can argue theory all day, in reality it will be better with a direct connection, as shown by any other game that allows that. Well the thing is that you have no idea what latency is through "direct connect". You only have examples of broodwar which may or may not apply in SC2. Afaik BW didn't have built in latency, the protocol was different etc. You can't just say that "it worked for broodwar therefore it has to work for sc2"
What I can say though is that it's going to be better than through Bnet2. Also there is no reason why the protocol of Bnet2 would magically work EU <> NA but not EU <> Kor.
Exactly, oBlade, thanks.
|
All that network stuff aside, I wonder how so many people seem so sure this will prevail? There is a hacked version of the current client now, that will not work when the next patch hits, then gets hacked again, hack break with next patch, rinse/repeat. As much as I would like a LAN option, piracy can't be the correct solution.
|
On July 05 2011 04:12 oBlade wrote:
It's basic networking that would work in SC2, but they didn't implement it because they went with the big brother netcode of central servers and disconnected regions that ostensibly rakes in more cash.
Edit: This isn't a subject like judging SC2 balance based off BW balance. You can find competent netcode in thousands of games, most of which came from studios smaller than Blizzard. BW is just the example closest to heart.
Point is this crack doesn't change the code, it just hosts the server on your PC instead. How would that improve matters for anyone except the guy hosting it?
|
On July 05 2011 04:13 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:10 RoyalCheese wrote:On July 05 2011 04:08 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 04:05 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 04:03 MavercK wrote:On July 05 2011 04:01 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:59 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote:On July 05 2011 03:52 zatic wrote:On July 05 2011 03:40 Yaotzin wrote:
[quote]
A Korean connecting to a Ukrainian by LAN would be pretty much the same latency as a Ukrainian logging onto the Korean server. If the Ukrainian has a shit ping to that server they're going to have a shit (probably shitter) ping to the server in the Korean gamer's house. This is not true. While EU <> Kor will never be really enjoyable, at least it could be playable. Right now it's just completely unplayable, way worse than direct connections would be. So in that case a Korean <> Ukrainian game played with this crack would definitely have better latency. Why would it be better? You're connecting to a server in some dude's house instead of a server in a farm in Seoul. That's the only difference... Yepp and that difference is why it's better. Don't ask me why it sucks so much through Bnet, but it just does. Direct connection is going to be way better in any case. See Broodwar which wasn't pretty, but playable EU <> Kor. It's better to connect to a random PC vs a server farm? You're joking, right?
the difference is the route your connection takes to that server
it's direct, it doesn't hop off the freeway to head into an off the track town where theres a McDonald's to catch some breakfast.
a) All connections do that. It's how the internet works. b) Blizzard doesn't control that path. c) connecting to a suburb in Seoul would take an almost identical route to connecting to a farm in Seoul. currently player A > battle.net server > player b lan mode/direct connection player A > player B think of direct as a straight line, whereas first point is a triangle. bnet server -> player b consists of a few miles in Seoul. It's not gonna make a difference. A few hops around ISPs in Seoul isn't gonna add any amount of latency any human is going to notice! That is all fine in theory. In reality though Bnet2 latency is unplayable between EU and Kor. Certainly way worse than any direct connection. So you can argue theory all day, in reality it will be better with a direct connection, as shown by any other game that allows that. Well the thing is that you have no idea what latency is through "direct connect". You only have examples of broodwar which may or may not apply in SC2. Afaik BW didn't have built in latency, the protocol was different etc. You can't just say that "it worked for broodwar therefore it has to work for sc2" What I can say though is that it's going to be better than through Bnet2. Also there is no reason why the protocol of Bnet2 would magically work EU <> NA but not EU <> Kor. Exactly, oBlade, thanks.
Well riddle me this, then. Why would it work from eu to na but not from eu to korea? Is it blizzard disturbing it somehow (why would it then work between eu and na), is it their incompetence, is it that the seoul datacenters suck or is it just the way the infrastructure is? I'm not trying to be an asshole, it really doesn't make sense to me.
Because if it's anything but blizzard blocking it or seoul datacenters, the private server won't fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
