On August 18 2012 08:31 iky43210 wrote: why HOTS still don't have a spectate mode, this is getting ridiculous
Because it's a peer-to-peer game with Battle.net as the referee, and not a Server/client model game. Your "spectate mode" request most likely came from League of Legends, which easily supports that mode due to the Client/Server model.
In League of Legends the default behaviour is that only the information that the server knows about, is considered trusted, and cached - that's why the spectate mode works, along with features such as skip, fast forward, rewind, etc.
In SC2 every single machine must be on exactly the same page at any given point in time, down to the microsecond. That's exactly the reason why you cannot have spectators just hop in willy-nilly right in the middle of a match, because that would desync the game. But in League, if any player has a crappy connection or outright disconnects, it doesn't affect everyone else - the way that SC2 does.
Two completely different games with completely different requirements.
Yes but nothing is stopping one of the peers becoming a relay point for client/server, but I guess Blizzard will want to charge extra for that later.
Also, there's no reason to get network problems due to battlenet in peer to peer in the middle of a match (like what happened to leenock). But ofcourse Blizzard wants to authenticate clients for no reason but their draconian DRM.
Actually the only thing you manage to convince me of is that you don't understand the implications of the restrictions that a peer to peer game model imposes.
Every spectator needs to be in sync with all the others. If just one spectator is lagging then everyone will lag. You can observe custom games if the creator allows it.
For the sake of playability it has to stay that way.
Edit: On a different note. Is the widow mine change confirmed? I heard something about that it all was a misunderstanding?
On August 18 2012 20:23 Finnz wrote: woah wait a minute...so widow mines are getting a buff? blizzard are going crazy lol.
Buff ? If it's going to be single target mine, it will be shit. Nobody will make them unless against meching Terran in TvT. What's the point of making these mines against zerg when you will kill a single less expensive unit than the mine itself (zergling/roach counterattacks)? And the only thing you will kill against protoss will be zealot warp-in run-bys which is still not effective (you won't be hitting his main army due to observers in it). You may get these mines against Oracle but by looking at Oracle, I don't think we will see it that often in PvT.
On August 18 2012 20:38 Sapphire.lux wrote: A bit confused about what the mine does now. It is instant detonation but with a lot less splash? Or no splash at all?
Anyway, instant detonation is a big step in the right direction.
Instant seems silly to me.. should allow for at least time to blink away or quick load a dropship if you see it and can micro that fast
Yeah but with no or very little splash it's gona kill one unit, that's fair considering you can take no dmg if you have detection and the mine cost supply and gas. Actualy the mineral/ gas cost is to much probably.
With instant detonation you can use them to protect flanks and be part of an actual mech army.
Blizzard is reinventing the wheel with this one lol
On August 18 2012 08:31 iky43210 wrote: why HOTS still don't have a spectate mode, this is getting ridiculous
Because it's a peer-to-peer game with Battle.net as the referee, and not a Server/client model game. Your "spectate mode" request most likely came from League of Legends, which easily supports that mode due to the Client/Server model.
In League of Legends the default behaviour is that only the information that the server knows about, is considered trusted, and cached - that's why the spectate mode works, along with features such as skip, fast forward, rewind, etc.
In SC2 every single machine must be on exactly the same page at any given point in time, down to the microsecond. That's exactly the reason why you cannot have spectators just hop in willy-nilly right in the middle of a match, because that would desync the game. But in League, if any player has a crappy connection or outright disconnects, it doesn't affect everyone else - the way that SC2 does.
Two completely different games with completely different requirements.
Yes but nothing is stopping one of the peers becoming a relay point for client/server, but I guess Blizzard will want to charge extra for that later.
Also, there's no reason to get network problems due to battlenet in peer to peer in the middle of a match (like what happened to leenock). But ofcourse Blizzard wants to authenticate clients for no reason but their draconian DRM.
Actually the only thing you manage to convince me of is that you don't understand the implications of the restrictions that a peer to peer game model imposes.
Every spectator needs to be in sync with all the others. If just one spectator is lagging then everyone will lag. You can observe custom games if the creator allows it.
For the sake of playability it has to stay that way.
That's not entirely accurate. If all peers are assumed to be equal, then it is. But they don't have to be.
For example, you could construct a peer-to-peer network like this. The actual players would be peers and feed each other data. An obeserver would also be a peer, being fed data from the other peers. But any additional observers would be fed data by the peer-observer.
In such a model, you have primary peers and secondary peers. Secondary peers are fed data on a delay from a particular primary peer. Lag amongst the primary peers will lag all of them. But lag among the secondary peers only lags the *secondary* peers.
You can even have tiers of such a system, with tertiary peers fed from secondaries and so forth. Each layer of peers is more delayed than the rest, but their latency will not affect the primary peers.
On August 18 2012 08:31 iky43210 wrote: why HOTS still don't have a spectate mode, this is getting ridiculous
Because it's a peer-to-peer game with Battle.net as the referee, and not a Server/client model game. Your "spectate mode" request most likely came from League of Legends, which easily supports that mode due to the Client/Server model.
In League of Legends the default behaviour is that only the information that the server knows about, is considered trusted, and cached - that's why the spectate mode works, along with features such as skip, fast forward, rewind, etc.
In SC2 every single machine must be on exactly the same page at any given point in time, down to the microsecond. That's exactly the reason why you cannot have spectators just hop in willy-nilly right in the middle of a match, because that would desync the game. But in League, if any player has a crappy connection or outright disconnects, it doesn't affect everyone else - the way that SC2 does.
Two completely different games with completely different requirements.
Yes but nothing is stopping one of the peers becoming a relay point for client/server, but I guess Blizzard will want to charge extra for that later.
Also, there's no reason to get network problems due to battlenet in peer to peer in the middle of a match (like what happened to leenock). But ofcourse Blizzard wants to authenticate clients for no reason but their draconian DRM.
Actually the only thing you manage to convince me of is that you don't understand the implications of the restrictions that a peer to peer game model imposes.
Every spectator needs to be in sync with all the others. If just one spectator is lagging then everyone will lag. You can observe custom games if the creator allows it.
For the sake of playability it has to stay that way.
That's not entirely accurate. If all peers are assumed to be equal, then it is. But they don't have to be.
For example, you could construct a peer-to-peer network like this. The actual players would be peers and feed each other data. An obeserver would also be a peer, being fed data from the other peers. But any additional observers would be fed data by the peer-observer.
In such a model, you have primary peers and secondary peers. Secondary peers are fed data on a delay from a particular primary peer. Lag amongst the primary peers will lag all of them. But lag among the secondary peers only lags the *secondary* peers.
You can even have tiers of such a system, with tertiary peers fed from secondaries and so forth. Each layer of peers is more delayed than the rest, but their latency will not affect the primary peers.
Hmm.
But wouldn't the observer feeding secondary grade observers have to cache the game state if one observer is lagging then? The infeasibility of the server/client model with SC2 is that the game state is too big to transfer. Surely, storing the gamestate while waiting for other peers will take a lot of computational resources. This might cause the observer to lag in turn affecting the actual players, no ?
On August 18 2012 09:36 dynwar7 wrote: Huh? is this real? Widow mine for single unit, no splash damage?
Well, they just love getting terrans hope up and then get them all the way down......
And to the guy complaining
Window mines being single target isn't fundamentally bad. Spider mines were single target, but you got 3 of them. The cost and supply would just have to be adjusted and it would still serve it's intended role of positional play (not nuking armies).
I would seriously give up the battle hellion for the vutlure type of mine placement.
Then again, I just dont like the battle hellion. Why the hell does it get extra hp? How does it work if the hellion is at 30 hp then you transform it, does it get bonus hp on top of the 30 or keep 30? does the extra HP only count as extra total HP?
Agreed. Giving it more armor (+2 like ultras ? :D) would be easier to implement and more interesting for the game (making it good again against the marines,lings and zealots it is supposed to counter, but not changing much versus banelings,, roaches, stalkers or quick hellions, giving us more interesting counter relationships.
the problem hellions face as tanks is their lack of hp pool against strong aoes. Armor wouldn't change this issue, thats why they double wield marine shields and gain extra hp. And the hellion with light armor is supposed to tank for mech against toss, which didn't work in WoL. Aoes just killed them and after immortal range buff you couldn't punish the aoes against the hellions, because they could stay outside of tank range, to get good shots off. Everything else was fine for hellions, they just needed alot of control, while tanks needed to be controlled too, while vikings needed to be positioned, while ravens dropped their pdds, while you kept the thors ai from going idiot mode. Yeah if you got hit out of posi with mech you had a problem with mech lol. Thats why we get units that don't need to much control, but of course get way better with control. For example using battle hellions and hellions at the same time. Or turning off autocast of the warhound, which we will probably not see for a couple of years, like charge, which is way better without autocast.
On August 18 2012 08:31 iky43210 wrote: why HOTS still don't have a spectate mode, this is getting ridiculous
Because it's a peer-to-peer game with Battle.net as the referee, and not a Server/client model game. Your "spectate mode" request most likely came from League of Legends, which easily supports that mode due to the Client/Server model.
In League of Legends the default behaviour is that only the information that the server knows about, is considered trusted, and cached - that's why the spectate mode works, along with features such as skip, fast forward, rewind, etc.
In SC2 every single machine must be on exactly the same page at any given point in time, down to the microsecond. That's exactly the reason why you cannot have spectators just hop in willy-nilly right in the middle of a match, because that would desync the game. But in League, if any player has a crappy connection or outright disconnects, it doesn't affect everyone else - the way that SC2 does.
Two completely different games with completely different requirements.
Yes but nothing is stopping one of the peers becoming a relay point for client/server, but I guess Blizzard will want to charge extra for that later.
Also, there's no reason to get network problems due to battlenet in peer to peer in the middle of a match (like what happened to leenock). But ofcourse Blizzard wants to authenticate clients for no reason but their draconian DRM.
Actually the only thing you manage to convince me of is that you don't understand the implications of the restrictions that a peer to peer game model imposes.
Every spectator needs to be in sync with all the others. If just one spectator is lagging then everyone will lag. You can observe custom games if the creator allows it.
For the sake of playability it has to stay that way.
That's not entirely accurate. If all peers are assumed to be equal, then it is. But they don't have to be.
For example, you could construct a peer-to-peer network like this. The actual players would be peers and feed each other data. An obeserver would also be a peer, being fed data from the other peers. But any additional observers would be fed data by the peer-observer.
In such a model, you have primary peers and secondary peers. Secondary peers are fed data on a delay from a particular primary peer. Lag amongst the primary peers will lag all of them. But lag among the secondary peers only lags the *secondary* peers.
You can even have tiers of such a system, with tertiary peers fed from secondaries and so forth. Each layer of peers is more delayed than the rest, but their latency will not affect the primary peers.
Hmm.
But wouldn't the observer feeding secondary grade observers have to cache the game state if one observer is lagging then? The infeasibility of the server/client model with SC2 is that the game state is too big to transfer. Surely, storing the gamestate while waiting for other peers will take a lot of computational resources. This might cause the observer to lag in turn affecting the actual players, no ?
A system like what NicolBolas describes actually exists for Warcraft 3 with the 3rd party program Waaagh!TV.
No caching of any gamestates is required, the feeding observer need not be syncronised with the secondary observers, he just sends out the data.
On August 18 2012 21:49 Corvi wrote: random question:
whats up with the thor in hots? last thing i read it was some kind of super unit like mothership?
the reason im asking this is that i see no way to play against pure muta (and most air in general) with mech in hots ...
have you not seen the widow mine? a 75mineral 1 supply unit will blow a flock of mutas from thr sky in one go
am i getting this right. WIdow mines were already really strong, they've now removed the timer so they blow instantly, and also increased damage? thats crazy if thats true and it sticks. I hope they have impartial people during the beta and not idiots that just wanna get into better leagues by making everything OP
On August 18 2012 21:49 Corvi wrote: random question:
whats up with the thor in hots? last thing i read it was some kind of super unit like mothership?
the reason im asking this is that i see no way to play against pure muta (and most air in general) with mech in hots ...
have you not seen the widow mine? a 75mineral 1 supply unit will blow a flock of mutas from thr sky in one go
am i getting this right. WIdow mines were already really strong, they've now removed the timer so they blow instantly, and also increased damage? thats crazy if thats true and it sticks. I hope they have impartial people during the beta and not idiots that just wanna get into better leagues by making everything OP
its a single target unit, no splash dmg, it will be close to useless now
On August 18 2012 21:49 Corvi wrote: random question:
whats up with the thor in hots? last thing i read it was some kind of super unit like mothership?
the reason im asking this is that i see no way to play against pure muta (and most air in general) with mech in hots ...
have you not seen the widow mine? a 75mineral 1 supply unit will blow a flock of mutas from thr sky in one go
am i getting this right. WIdow mines were already really strong, they've now removed the timer so they blow instantly, and also increased damage? thats crazy if thats true and it sticks. I hope they have impartial people during the beta and not idiots that just wanna get into better leagues by making everything OP
its a single target unit, no splash dmg, it will be close to useless now
but it has no timer and does more damage then it did before? it was 1 shotting oracle/swarm hosts and i believe it took 3 to take out a tempest. If they've made it more powerful, i dont think something so cheap in every sense - minerals/supply/buildtime - can be useless. It will shut down drops COMPLETELY. Before, with 10 second cool down, its gonna kill your dropship/WP or whatver, but then enemy is probably gonna unload their units. Now its just gone.
On August 18 2012 22:57 Highways wrote: Widow Mines Should be:
- Splash Damage - 3 second timer - Able to manually detonate instantly
This will reward skillful players who pay attention to their mines to blow it up instantly.
why would you need to blow it up instantly though? Even the best pros, even the likes of DRG are gonna struglle to micro the units that have a mine on them away from the rest of the army in 3 seconds.
From what ive seen so far, its seems like its being really really dumbed down, and alot of these units are gonna be easily abused by really unskillful players to get them really high in ladder
Cool changes so far I am so glad they are making the mothership only affect ground so good means bad protosses can't be crutched they have to actually play well in many cases late game.