|
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 04:04 TedJustice wrote:
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.
This was my first thought as well, I wouldn't be surprised if Blizz just ignores it but now official LAN from them should happen and now I just have to hope that it will.
|
Something like this was bound to happen at some point, I do not see it changing much though, as many have stated above no tournaments are going to use it because blizzard would take action. There will likely be a small sub-set of people who use it just because they don't want to buy the actual game.
Now if only blizzard would have given a LanPC (More like a portal server) to bigger events like MLG/Dreamhack/GSL instead of some hackers making it available that will get hardly any use.
|
Anyone who's used listchecker in WC3 can tell you that there's drastic improvements in latency from bypassing the Bnet servers. If this was also true for BW then I don't see why it wouldn't be for SC2, unless some of our resident networking experts can provide a counter argument based on something other than "It doesn't make sense".
|
Zurich15327 Posts
OK I don't know how I can explain this. Maybe with these completely imaginary numbers (which shouldn't be too far off):
BroodWar (P2P):
NA <> EU 100ms
Kor <> EU 150ms
Any other game (P2P):
NA <> EU 100ms
Kor <> EU 150ms
Starcraft2 (Through Bnet2):
NA <> EU 100ms
Kor <> EU 2000ms
Are you seriously suggesting there is something build into the Bnet2 protocol that somehow detects it's connecting Kor <> EU and introduces unplayble latency just for the fuck of it?
The only reason for the incredible high delay in Kor <> EU can be the routing of all game traffic through the Bnet servers. I don't know WHY that is set up so bad, but it's just observable fact. And getting rid of that will improve latency. And again, there is no reason why the Bnet2 protocol should magically behave differently than any other gaming protocol, and on top of that only between Kor and EU.
If you are still convinced a direct connection will not improve latency between EU and Kor than lets just wait until someone tests it OK? No point to further discuss this.
|
On July 05 2011 04:30 zatic wrote:
The only reason for the incredible high delay in Kor <> EU can be the routing of all game traffic through the Bnet servers. I don't know WHY that is set up so bad, but it's just observable fact.
Yes clearly Blizzard screwed the pooch somewhere.
And getting rid of that will improve latency.
This is the point of contention. How does this crack get rid of it? You're just hosting Bnet now instead of connecting to the Blizzard server hosting it. Good for the dude hosting it, but how does it help the guy in Europe or w/e? It should have exactly the same problems as Blizzard's Bnet.
And again, there is no reason why the Bnet2 protocol should magically behave differently than any other gaming protocol, and on top of that only between Kor and EU.
But alas, it does.
If you are still convinced a direct connection will not improve latency between EU and Kor than lets just wait until someone tests it OK? No point to further discuss this.
It's not a direct connection. SC2 simply doesn't have the capability to connect directly.
|
Zurich15327 Posts
Alright since you just can't accept how things are let's just wait until someone tests it. There is really no point in discussing this any further, and it's starting to derail the topic.
|
I'm shocked it took an entire year for a group to actually reverse engineer the netcode and build a server from the ground up. I dont think blizzard is going to like this at all, WC3 and BW in china were mostly pirated and played on p2p clients with custom lobbies etc. With this private realm now out the playerbase in China wont be buying SC2 and the expansions. Kind of a tragedy but as I said i'm surprised it took this long. I hope Blizzard makes the correct decisions in the near future, because if this becomes mainstream what's really stopping them from releasing lan.
|
Jesus.
I play on NA from latin america and having around 350 to 500 milliseconds is standard. I can't even imagine the pleasure of playing at somewhere close to 150, let alone 50!!!
I wonder if i would go up in the ladder if i could. Micro would be so much better.
Masters around 1200 points now...
|
On July 05 2011 04:29 Baiyan wrote:
Anyone who's used listchecker in WC3 can tell you that there's drastic improvements in latency from bypassing the Bnet servers. If this was also true for BW then I don't see why it wouldn't be for SC2, unless some of our resident networking experts can provide a counter argument based on something other than "It doesn't make sense".
This is only half true. Warcraft was programmed to use a different communication interval when played on lan or on bnet. Basically, on bnet it sent data four or five times a second, meaning you have an auto lag of at least 200ms. On lan mode this number increased to somewhere around 10 or 20 times a second, cutting this lag 100ms to 50ms. Listchecker exploited this fact, by hosting internet games through the lan interface, so the data submission rate was simply much higher.
Of course, not having to run through a dedicated server but being able to communicate directly does improve latency too. but the major factor here stems from warcraft 3 being so old, that it was originally developed to work with dial-up connections, that just could not handle the data rate used in lan mode. This is why all these listchecker, ggclient, ghostbot hosting platforms popped up. They all exploit the same thing, each with some other random improvements. But they all are a huge chunk faster than bnet, simply because of the higher data transmission rate. Funny tech gimmics only contribute a small share to that speed-up.
|
On July 05 2011 04:36 zatic wrote:
Alright since you just can't accept how things are let's just wait until someone tests it. There is really no point in discussing this any further, and it's starting to derail the topic.
Your wholly unjustified arrogance is tiresome so I agree. Generally when you say something and someone disagrees you try back it up, not cry how the other person can't accept how right you are.
|
On July 05 2011 04:20 RoyalCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:13 zatic wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I know its not the point you wanted to make, but maybe blizzard IS increasing lag a bit because some algorithm has to check constantly if both clients are genuine. This and the "direct connection" could maybe improve lag to a playable amount. (according to speedtest.net i have 330 ms ping to the speedtest-seoul-servers)
|
On July 05 2011 04:30 zatic wrote:
OK I don't know how I can explain this. Maybe with these completely imaginary numbers (which shouldn't be too far off):
BroodWar (P2P):
NA <> EU 100ms
Kor <> EU 150ms
Starcraft2 (Through Bnet2):
NA <> EU 100ms
Kor <> EU 2000ms
Are you seriously suggesting there is something build into the Bnet2 protocol that somehow detects it's connecting Kor <> EU and introduces unplayble latency just for the fuck of it?
... Not into the protocol, but they have probably a priorisation in place that ruins the connection. It is not necessarily even there to ruin the connection Kor<>EU, but in Blizzard segmentation of battle.net it is simply not regarded as necessary to be able to play between Kor and EU, so I doubt it will be fixed by Blizzard.
It may well be, that the crack could remove that problem, but I think many people have too high hopes of that working for a longer period of time. I also doubt it will be any good to the scene to have a "secret pro-net" and an open battle.net. Segementation is never good, be it imposed by Blizzard or by hacks.
|
On July 05 2011 04:29 Baiyan wrote:
Anyone who's used listchecker in WC3 can tell you that there's drastic improvements in latency from bypassing the Bnet servers. If this was also true for BW then I don't see why it wouldn't be for SC2, unless some of our resident networking experts can provide a counter argument based on something other than "It doesn't make sense".
This. There's a reason these third party hosting services became so popular. Taking bnet servers out of the equation improves latency significantly.
|
On July 05 2011 04:43 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:29 Baiyan wrote:
Anyone who's used listchecker in WC3 can tell you that there's drastic improvements in latency from bypassing the Bnet servers. If this was also true for BW then I don't see why it wouldn't be for SC2, unless some of our resident networking experts can provide a counter argument based on something other than "It doesn't make sense". This. There's a reason these third party hosting services became so popular. Taking bnet servers out of the equation improves latency significantly.
They changed that set up in sc2, so theres no point in bitching
If you ACTUALLY played wc3 ladder and compared it to sc2 ladder, you would see a vast difference.
|
Lan being available is going toto make tournament organizers pretty frustrated with Blizzard. The tournament organizers get a lot of criticism from things like lag an disconnects. Now they babes way of completely getting rid of that, but blizadd isn't going to let them use it. Blizzard also probably tells tournament organizers stuff like "its not possible", so some guys doing this on their own free time really hurts Blizzard's credibility. How are tournament organizers going to feel about their reputation being damaged, when it could have been prevented by having lan functionality? Especially when the functionality exists, but Blizzard won't let them use it.
Tournament organizers such as gsl, mlg, dreamhack etc have a lot to gain from lan functionality. I get a strong feelings that hey will be trying to reason with Blizzard to get lan functionality now that this is a working product.
This is very good news for us as viewers. Potentially.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On July 05 2011 04:39 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:36 zatic wrote:
Alright since you just can't accept how things are let's just wait until someone tests it. There is really no point in discussing this any further, and it's starting to derail the topic. Your wholly unjustified arrogance is tiresome so I agree. Generally when you say something and someone disagrees you try back it up, not cry how the other person can't accept how right you are.
Okay let's move on.
|
Zurich15327 Posts
On July 05 2011 04:43 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:29 Baiyan wrote:
Anyone who's used listchecker in WC3 can tell you that there's drastic improvements in latency from bypassing the Bnet servers. If this was also true for BW then I don't see why it wouldn't be for SC2, unless some of our resident networking experts can provide a counter argument based on something other than "It doesn't make sense". This. There's a reason these third party hosting services became so popular. Taking bnet servers out of the equation improves latency significantly.
Well as someone else said with War3 (and BW) it was different in that a different protocol was used for Bnet and (actual) LAN. What these tools did is enable the LAN protocol for Bnet. The actual gaming was direct between players though in both cases.
With SC2 things are different. Currently all game traffic is routed through Bnet2 servers, and the crack will potentially eliminate this extra tour the game traffic takes through the intertubes.
|
On July 05 2011 04:39 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 04:36 zatic wrote:
Alright since you just can't accept how things are let's just wait until someone tests it. There is really no point in discussing this any further, and it's starting to derail the topic. Your wholly unjustified arrogance is tiresome so I agree. Generally when you say something and someone disagrees you try back it up, not cry how the other person can't accept how right you are.
you are some random guy whos arguing with people who have years of experience and knowledge, the only person whos arrogant in here is you
|
On July 05 2011 04:51 zatic wrote:
With SC2 things are different. Currently all game traffic is routed through Bnet2 servers, and the crack will potentially eliminate this extra tour the game traffic takes through the intertubes.
That is good enough!
|
Please fix the thread, this is not a LAN crack, it in no way allowed direct client to client connection, this is a battle.net emulator that intercepts and reroutes starcraft 2 traffic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
