|
On January 20 2012 08:14 sd_andeh wrote:
People need to realize the difference between Blizzard not having a LAN-setting, and COMPUTERS not being able to handle StarCraft 2.
These problems weren't caused by neither routing or connection, they were caused by the computers. Hence all bullshit about Blizzard not having a LAN-setting is irrelevant as even if they were playing a LAN-mode - the lag would remain.
Good post by Carmac, but it's sad to see players fly all the way to Kiev to play in a tournament, and lose due to IEM not testing the computers enough / providing good enough computers. Some people were undeniably ROBBED of games because of it. Let's hope for a better tomorrow! To remind you that there was lag on all computers, according to WhiteRa, just on some it was much worse, and on others it was playable - but still "not normal".
|
Wow, basically half the posts on here talk about blizzard and bnet. THIS WASN'T A BATTLE.NET ISSUE.
The issue was the computers. They simply weren't good enough, and some worse than others due to a so far unexplained reason (as Carmac stated they all have the same specs, yet no reason why some computers lagged worse than others).
Get it to your heads that this was indeed IEM's fault, and not even remotely close to Blizzard's fault. Battle.net was fine. The internetconnection was fine.
We should all appreciate the post by Carmac though and sincerely hope that the problems are fixed tomorrow. Until then, we can just pray.
|
I'm a lazy TL lurker, when i see a wall of text i ignore it or browse around a bit. I read all of this.
Carmac: You cant be perfect.
Everyone else: keep in mind that while it might be said that internet setting are the most important thing to take care of there are countless others that are just as important, for every wrong i'm sure this event has tons of right.
|
this was just tweeted:
@SC2ZergLair
Zenio has agreed to a rematch with NightEnD due to lag problems in the final game of their bo3. Really good sportsmanship from @LiquidZenio.
1 minute ago via web
|
On January 20 2012 07:47 cyclone25 wrote:
NightEnD just told me that the game will be replayed tomorrow (bo3 or bo1).
is this a stupid troll or real ?
|
On January 20 2012 08:19 Apollo324 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:17 floor exercise wrote:On January 20 2012 08:15 Apollo324 wrote:
Blizzard isn't just hiding a button that says "RELEASE LAN". Not that simple, sorry.
The way BNet 2.0 is built, all of your games, all interactions between the players, the record of where each unit is, EVERYTHING is mediated on the server side. Your SC2 client DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOST A GAME! To provide LAN support, Blizzard would have to implement all of the server functionality on a client side program. The development time and cost would be huge. It's not going to happen.
Blizzard has said this much publicly. However, they have also said that they are working on a way of providing portable servers to major tournaments. Hypothetically, a year from now, MLG, DH, GSL will have their own BNet servers that can be run locally, removing these problems. Again, this will take time, but it's supposedly in the works.
Really sucks to see major tournaments suffering from technical issues, and I can't imagine being a progamer and suffering from random lag spikes wrecking my games, but I don't think people can casually throw this at Blizzard's feet.
My $0.02 This is so wrong it's physically painful to read. Explain please? This is based on interviews with BNet 2.0 engineers and Browder.
Right now you connect to a server cluster that is far away, therefore it lags. If you move the servers next to you computer you have lan. Lan mode is implemented by setting a bnet server next to your computer. The only client side change is changing the IP you connect to from SC2.
This is pretty basic stuff >.>
|
wow! respect, good sir. i am a happy little nerd now =)
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
|
On January 20 2012 08:19 Apollo324 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:17 floor exercise wrote:On January 20 2012 08:15 Apollo324 wrote:
Blizzard isn't just hiding a button that says "RELEASE LAN". Not that simple, sorry.
The way BNet 2.0 is built, all of your games, all interactions between the players, the record of where each unit is, EVERYTHING is mediated on the server side. Your SC2 client DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOST A GAME! To provide LAN support, Blizzard would have to implement all of the server functionality on a client side program. The development time and cost would be huge. It's not going to happen.
Blizzard has said this much publicly. However, they have also said that they are working on a way of providing portable servers to major tournaments. Hypothetically, a year from now, MLG, DH, GSL will have their own BNet servers that can be run locally, removing these problems. Again, this will take time, but it's supposedly in the works.
Really sucks to see major tournaments suffering from technical issues, and I can't imagine being a progamer and suffering from random lag spikes wrecking my games, but I don't think people can casually throw this at Blizzard's feet.
My $0.02 This is so wrong it's physically painful to read. Explain please? This is based on interviews with BNet 2.0 engineers and Browder.
uhh what ? I dont know much about the techical aspects of it but I dont see why client side servers can be that hard to set up, for major events. Its not like they need to overhaul the existing system (which mind you was garbage to start with and its not like they didnt have good working systems to learn from either, they just had a different vision of how they wanted to run it.
|
On January 20 2012 08:20 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:14 sd_andeh wrote:
People need to realize the difference between Blizzard not having a LAN-setting, and COMPUTERS not being able to handle StarCraft 2.
These problems weren't caused by neither routing or connection, they were caused by the computers. Hence all bullshit about Blizzard not having a LAN-setting is irrelevant as even if they were playing a LAN-mode - the lag would remain.
Good post by Carmac, but it's sad to see players fly all the way to Kiev to play in a tournament, and lose due to IEM not testing the computers enough / providing good enough computers. Some people were undeniably ROBBED of games because of it. Let's hope for a better tomorrow! To remind you that there was lag on all computers, according to WhiteRa, just on some it was much worse, and on others it was playable - but still "not normal".
The sole reason that some computers lagged more than other proves that it wasn't a battle.net issue. Besides, more people would have complained who were playing on the EU server in case it was a battle.net-related issue. Just read twitter what the pros say, especially ThorZain's.
Quoting:
mouzThorZaIN
How can they bring computers that cant handle the COMPUTER GAMES they want to play at their COMPUTER game tournament? It doesn't make sense.
|
On a side-note though, there may have been internetrelated issues as well (judging from what Grubby said etc), but the deciding battles were decided by the computers and not the internet nor the players.
|
On January 20 2012 08:23 sd_andeh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:20 figq wrote:On January 20 2012 08:14 sd_andeh wrote:
People need to realize the difference between Blizzard not having a LAN-setting, and COMPUTERS not being able to handle StarCraft 2.
These problems weren't caused by neither routing or connection, they were caused by the computers. Hence all bullshit about Blizzard not having a LAN-setting is irrelevant as even if they were playing a LAN-mode - the lag would remain.
Good post by Carmac, but it's sad to see players fly all the way to Kiev to play in a tournament, and lose due to IEM not testing the computers enough / providing good enough computers. Some people were undeniably ROBBED of games because of it. Let's hope for a better tomorrow! To remind you that there was lag on all computers, according to WhiteRa, just on some it was much worse, and on others it was playable - but still "not normal". The sole reason that some computers lagged more than other proves that it wasn't a battle.net issue. Besides, more people would have complained who were playing on the EU server in case it was a battle.net-related issue. Just read twitter what the pros say, especially ThorZain's. Quoting: Show nested quote +mouzThorZaIN
How can they bring computers that cant handle the COMPUTER GAMES they want to play at their COMPUTER game tournament? It doesn't make sense.
There was ALSO BNet lag.
|
Well, it really sounds like the lag and its management was the responsbility of the organizers, it not being a BNET problem and all.
On the bright side, being a pc problem, they should have it completely under control tomorrow (=
Anyways guys, shit happens and you may fault people for not being cool. But you really can't fault people for losing it, especially not when they feel they lost something due to poor chance. Not everyone is as cool as you, and not everyone had as much to lose as he did.
|
On January 20 2012 08:21 Freye wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:19 Apollo324 wrote:On January 20 2012 08:17 floor exercise wrote:On January 20 2012 08:15 Apollo324 wrote:
Blizzard isn't just hiding a button that says "RELEASE LAN". Not that simple, sorry.
The way BNet 2.0 is built, all of your games, all interactions between the players, the record of where each unit is, EVERYTHING is mediated on the server side. Your SC2 client DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOST A GAME! To provide LAN support, Blizzard would have to implement all of the server functionality on a client side program. The development time and cost would be huge. It's not going to happen.
Blizzard has said this much publicly. However, they have also said that they are working on a way of providing portable servers to major tournaments. Hypothetically, a year from now, MLG, DH, GSL will have their own BNet servers that can be run locally, removing these problems. Again, this will take time, but it's supposedly in the works.
Really sucks to see major tournaments suffering from technical issues, and I can't imagine being a progamer and suffering from random lag spikes wrecking my games, but I don't think people can casually throw this at Blizzard's feet.
My $0.02 This is so wrong it's physically painful to read. Explain please? This is based on interviews with BNet 2.0 engineers and Browder. Right now you connect to a server cluster that is far away, therefore it lags. If you move the servers next to you computer you have lan. Lan mode is implemented by setting a bnet server next to your computer. The only client side change is changing the IP you connect to from SC2. This is pretty basic stuff >.>
Actually you don't even have to change client-side, you just need a local DNS server that reroutes the normal BNET ip to the local server.
|
On January 20 2012 08:21 Freye wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:19 Apollo324 wrote:On January 20 2012 08:17 floor exercise wrote:On January 20 2012 08:15 Apollo324 wrote:
Blizzard isn't just hiding a button that says "RELEASE LAN". Not that simple, sorry.
The way BNet 2.0 is built, all of your games, all interactions between the players, the record of where each unit is, EVERYTHING is mediated on the server side. Your SC2 client DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOST A GAME! To provide LAN support, Blizzard would have to implement all of the server functionality on a client side program. The development time and cost would be huge. It's not going to happen.
Blizzard has said this much publicly. However, they have also said that they are working on a way of providing portable servers to major tournaments. Hypothetically, a year from now, MLG, DH, GSL will have their own BNet servers that can be run locally, removing these problems. Again, this will take time, but it's supposedly in the works.
Really sucks to see major tournaments suffering from technical issues, and I can't imagine being a progamer and suffering from random lag spikes wrecking my games, but I don't think people can casually throw this at Blizzard's feet.
My $0.02 This is so wrong it's physically painful to read. Explain please? This is based on interviews with BNet 2.0 engineers and Browder. Right now you connect to a server cluster that is far away, therefore it lags. If you move the servers next to you computer you have lan. Lan mode is implemented by setting a bnet server next to your computer. The only client side change is changing the IP you connect to from SC2. This is pretty basic stuff >.>
In other words the portable servers that Blizzard is discussing...
The LAN support that people are crying for is asking for public release of (part of) a BNet2.0 client to run in parallel to their client side SC2. This is the standard model for LAN support.
The BNet2.0 code is almost certainly written to take advantage of a parallel computing environment rather than a single, relatively small machine. Changing that alone requires significant development resources. Also, it causes a MASSIVE security risk from reverse engineering the BNet2.0 architecture. Finally, the release of such server functionality would cost Blizzard any degree of control on tournament and ladder structures. And whether you agree to how Blizz runs their ladders and tournament contracts, it's their IP and they have the right to protect it.
|
It's shitty, but as things currently are this kind of thing happens. I had to, you know, work as well but I didn't hear of any issues outside of the lag. Kind of curious how HuK thinks the connection in Kiev influences the one in Brasil though. It's something to do with pipes I assume? Or is he just going to stop playing altogether?
Keep on trucking Carmac, it's how you deal with it that'll decide the final tally!
Edit: Oh mad props to Zenio if that's true btw.
|
On January 20 2012 08:23 sd_andeh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 08:20 figq wrote:On January 20 2012 08:14 sd_andeh wrote:
People need to realize the difference between Blizzard not having a LAN-setting, and COMPUTERS not being able to handle StarCraft 2.
These problems weren't caused by neither routing or connection, they were caused by the computers. Hence all bullshit about Blizzard not having a LAN-setting is irrelevant as even if they were playing a LAN-mode - the lag would remain.
Good post by Carmac, but it's sad to see players fly all the way to Kiev to play in a tournament, and lose due to IEM not testing the computers enough / providing good enough computers. Some people were undeniably ROBBED of games because of it. Let's hope for a better tomorrow! To remind you that there was lag on all computers, according to WhiteRa, just on some it was much worse, and on others it was playable - but still "not normal". The sole reason that some computers lagged more than other proves that it wasn't a battle.net issue. Besides, more people would have complained who were playing on the EU server in case it was a battle.net-related issue. Just read twitter what the pros say, especially ThorZain's. Quoting: Show nested quote +mouzThorZaIN
How can they bring computers that cant handle the COMPUTER GAMES they want to play at their COMPUTER game tournament? It doesn't make sense. Some computers can have network issues that others don't, due to settings or software. Connection from there to Bnet isn't the same as any other connection from EU to Bnet. So these two arguments aren't convincing at all.
Of course, I have no idea what the specs of the computers were, so it could be just that the computers were not good enough, but that would be really unusual. Guess we should wait for further clarification about it.
|
Would be nice for blizzard to make a restricted time-based client that doesn't need internet...based on solid contracts with major organizations. It hurts everyone the decision not to make this...for what? 
I congratulate the staff at IEM + the players actually attending it for the professionalism and understanding of the issue, the methods underwent to solve the issues and overall maturity shown towards the community. This should happen more often when issues like these arise.
Hope we will see as less problems as possible!
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
'Throughout the entire situation - from the start until after all of his games, he was considerate and understanding and his behaviour was very professional.'- Carmac on Naniwa. Was nice to see this as the amount of negative speculation that was flowing around Nani was a bit over-the-top.
|
On January 20 2012 08:15 Apollo324 wrote:
Blizzard isn't just hiding a button that says "RELEASE LAN". Not that simple, sorry.
The way BNet 2.0 is built, all of your games, all interactions between the players, the record of where each unit is, EVERYTHING is mediated on the server side. Your SC2 client does not have the ability to interact with another client in any way! To provide LAN support, Blizzard would have to implement all of the server functionality on a client side program. The development time and cost would be huge. It's not going to happen.
Blizzard has said this much publicly. However, they have also said that they are working on a way of providing portable servers to major tournaments. Hypothetically, a year from now, MLG, DH, GSL will have their own BNet servers that can be run locally, removing these problems. Again, this will take time, but it's supposedly in the works.
Really sucks to see major tournaments suffering from technical issues, and I can't imagine being a progamer and suffering from random lag spikes wrecking my games, but I don't think people can casually throw this at Blizzard's feet.
My $0.02
wtf are you talking about man :D the lag is there because the server is "far away" from the client. You can setup a server on your own network and play on it, with like 2 ms. This is done in most games on lans, but blizzard doesn't allow this. I assume because they're afraid people will just stop buying sc2 and play on other servers.
Even more so, I'm actually pretty sure some asian or russian hackers have already 'made' their own sc2 lan mode, it's really not a revolutionary thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
