Seriously, someone from TL.net needs to put their foot down at one of these events about BNET latency. Someone asked them about the bnet latency problems and the guy responded as if it was an actual distance issue between both clients. The problem is with the Bnet architecture, even if you host a game on BNet, there is still about 200-500 ms of delay added in both SC and WC3, and GGC/Hamachi/VCK/Lat Changers gets rid of this delay. If the Russians from Iccup can emulate a BW server, have better anti-hack features, and provided 0 server delay, then there's no reason Bnet servers should have this natural delay, ESPECIALLY IN CUSTOM GAMES which are 100% peer 2 peer. I can't believe they've avoided this question/problem for years.

prOxi.swAMi

Australia3091 Posts

October 13 2008 03:46 GMT

#22

Bold loses its emphasis when applied to the entire body of text.

Edit: but in all fairness you're right. They need to address it (and I'm sure they will!, it's fine in war3 as far as im aware)

404.Nintu

Canada1723 Posts

October 13 2008 03:53 GMT

#23

On October 13 2008 12:05 lwstupidus wrote:
Seriously, someone from TL.net needs to put their foot down at one of these events about BNET latency. Someone asked them about the bnet latency problems and the guy responded as if it was an actual distance issue between both clients. The problem is with the Bnet architecture, even if you host a game on BNet, there is still about 200-500 ms of delay added in both SC and WC3, and GGC/Hamachi/VCK/Lat Changers gets rid of this delay. If the Russians from Iccup can emulate a BW server, have better anti-hack features, and provided 0 server delay, then there's no reason Bnet servers should have this natural delay, ESPECIALLY IN CUSTOM GAMES. I can't believe they've avoided this question/problem for years.

When Starcraft was released it could only support such latency because of the average user being on 56k at best. If they sprung for Lan latency then nobody would have been able to play eachother due to Latency issues.

It's not a Bnet issue. It's a limitation they put in. They didn't realistcally expected it to be an issue. I can almost guarantee that the new battle net will have better latency. Also, yeah, learn2boldtastefully.

Alizee-

United States845 Posts

October 13 2008 04:27 GMT

#24

Pleaseeeeeeeee don't bring up antihack, notice how wc3 has no ladders outside of bnet except for the premier leagues that are basically for the top teams? SC's antihack wasn't updated or built as well wc3's so seriously that is a terrible point. Play both games before talking about them.

As far as the delay, well the hell if I know they don't like answering questions directly...ever.

Klockan3

Sweden2866 Posts

October 13 2008 07:28 GMT

#25

On October 13 2008 10:03 FrozenArbiter wrote:
The ladder comment I took to mean that they'll have the infrastructure of bnet setup in such a way so as to easily enable them to add AMM or Ladder support for custom game types (such as DotA).

Getting your own ladders/tournaments hosted by B-net is probably one of the new features which will cost money.

NarutO

Germany18839 Posts

October 13 2008 07:44 GMT

#26

On October 13 2008 01:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:
New units will be added in each expansion for multiplayer.

I really dislike that though! The rest seems pretty good actually! I'm looking forward to play.. OMG NEED BETA KEY

lwstupidus

United States74 Posts

October 13 2008 08:12 GMT

#27

On October 13 2008 12:53 Nintu wrote:

Show nested quote +

Your point is moot because it is a problem in War3 as well which obviously came out long after 56ks were dominant. If it's a limitation they put in that wasn't only delegated to online play, then it would be a problem on LAN, which it is not. So basically you just responded with no useful, relevant, or factual information...

SC's antihack wasn't updated or built as well wc3's so seriously that is a terrible point. Play both games before talking about them.

What the hell are you talking about, that wasn't my point at all. WC3 has no working anti-hack either (disc hack released 1 day after newest patch), so why don't you learn to read and play both games before talking about them, because I actually do play both of them.

404.Nintu

Canada1723 Posts

October 13 2008 10:14 GMT

#28

On October 13 2008 17:12 lwstupidus wrote:

Show nested quote +

They setup lan differently to run at a much lower latency. They did this because, as it turns out, Lanned computers are connected directly to eachother, which makes for much faster speeds. This is why you need Hamachi. Since these modern connections can now achieve Lan like speeds, Hamachi tricks your computer into thinking you're Lanned with them. Using the Lan protocol gives access to lower latency games(Because as mentioned, Lan was setup to play with very low compensation for latency). This is precisely why people would always use hamachi for serious events, until the recent latency changer.

Battle net is entirely unrelated to this. You seem to think that every packet goes through battle.net which causes this lag on battle.net. Have you ever lost your connection to battle.net but still magically stayed in the game? What? Your latency didn't get any better either?

When the game begins, it's just you and the player. That Lag isn't battle net. That lag is coding that blizzard implemented to make multiplayer at all possible during 56k years.

I'm glad I could be of help.

(I'm sure someone can give you a better explanation but I hope this helped you none-the-less.)