|
On February 01 2009 13:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: What matters is the LATENCY. BNet in SC has a lot of latency, unless you use LAN Latency tools (such as what ICCUP uses). BW's netcode is archaic, designed for the much slower average internet connection of ten years ago. The same thing won't apply to SC2.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On February 01 2009 14:06 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 13:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: What matters is the LATENCY. BNet in SC has a lot of latency, unless you use LAN Latency tools (such as what ICCUP uses). BW's netcode is archaic, designed for the much slower average internet connection of ten years ago. The same thing won't apply to SC2. Hopefully not but I was just saying he was missing the point of why people care about LAN. We are just going in circles here tho -_- Bottom line is that there's no reason that I, as a customer, would not want LAN available to me.
Oh and people behind school firewalls are a legitimate group imo.
|
ye lan is great for ppl who dont have valid cd keys lol. anyway i thought cs already brought esports to its highest.
|
It doesn't seem very good to me that if battle.net ever goes down unexpectedly then scheduled starleague matches would have to be cancelled. People's thoughts on the chances of that happening?
|
This is going nowhere.. Blizzard are not dumb enough to remove LAN
all those who argue LAN can be removed and fully substituted by some Bnet 2.0 SuperNetwork are just laughable imo.. SCii will remain offline / online just like the Alpha version.
|
On February 01 2009 18:49 ErOs_LeO wrote: This is going nowhere.. Blizzard are not dumb enough to remove LAN
all those who argue LAN can be removed and fully substituted by some Bnet 2.0 SuperNetwork are just laughable imo.. SCii will remain offline / online just like the Alpha version.
And yet Blizzard themselves has said they're considering removing it and focus 100 % on battle.net (see previous post for source).
IMO the laughable people are the ones who somehow manage to shut down their brains when Blizzard is saying stuff they dont like to hear.
I guess we will find out soon enough if LAN makes it or not.
|
It was said by a Diablo 3 developer.
People need to stop jumping to conclusions. ;;
|
On February 01 2009 20:31 maybenexttime wrote: It was said by a Diablo 3 developer.
People need to stop jumping to conclusions. ;;
LoL uh no, for Diablo3 no LAN is confirmed. It was said by a SC2 producer.
People need to start doing their homework or read previous posts before posting.
|
On February 01 2009 19:47 Daewon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 18:49 ErOs_LeO wrote: This is going nowhere.. Blizzard are not dumb enough to remove LAN
all those who argue LAN can be removed and fully substituted by some Bnet 2.0 SuperNetwork are just laughable imo.. SCii will remain offline / online just like the Alpha version. And yet Blizzard themselves has said they're considering removing it and focus 100 % on battle.net (see previous post for source). IMO the laughable people are the ones who somehow manage to shut down their brains when Blizzard is saying stuff they dont like to hear. I guess we will find out soon enough if LAN makes it or not.
As expected, you don't have any reliable source.. "Blizzard has said" "Blizzard themselves" wtf ? who's Blizzard ? Where did you read such statements? And don't you think that "considering removing" is slightly different from "REMOVING" ?
Don't you dare flame me.. who said i was against removing LAN? I'm just saying it would be totally retarded and wrong to combine offline / online (which is pretty paradoxical already) into a Super Flawless Bnet 2.0 ..
|
By whom exactly? Chris Sigaty?
|
On February 01 2009 22:59 maybenexttime wrote: By whom exactly? Chris Sigaty?
Yeah he said it. If you want the exact quote, go through some of the previous posts in this thread, one of the staffers i believe linked to it. BTW congrats on getting bronze in handball (if you care at all hehe). Denmark had a collective mental breakdown in the fight for third, just like they had in the semi :-)
ErOs_LeO you need to calm down, eat a cookie or something. First of all, where in my post did I flame you? oh wait that's right I didn't flame you, at least no more than you did in your post. Second, I didn't bother to go through all the posts in this thread to link to the source, you can do that yourself. And thirdly by "Blizzard" I mean a Blizzard producer working on SC2 is that good enough for you, or doesn't that qualify for Blizzard? In short: go though the posts and find the source, and then be quiet please.
Oh btw I couldn't care less whether or not you'd like to see LAN stay or go.
|
EXACTLY. Sigaty is CLUELESS. Unless, of course, you also believe it takes 3 HTs to make an Archon in BW or that Blizzard really wants his mother to be able to play and enjoy the game. T____T
And thanks.
|
On February 02 2009 03:08 maybenexttime wrote: EXACTLY. Sigaty is CLUELESS. Unless, of course, you also believe it takes 3 HTs to make an Archon in BW or that Blizzard really wants his mother to be able to play and enjoy the game. T____T
And thanks.
Well if you believe a producer working on SC2 is clueless, then fair enough hehe :-)
|
On February 02 2009 03:05 Daewon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 22:59 maybenexttime wrote: By whom exactly? Chris Sigaty? Yeah he said it. If you want the exact quote, go through some of the previous posts in this thread, one of the staffers i believe linked to it. Nobody linked Sigaty quote. At least I don't see it anywhere. Only quote was vague answer from Karune. So, please, can you give one? After all you're the one who started spreading this rumor...
|
On February 02 2009 03:13 Daewon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 03:08 maybenexttime wrote: EXACTLY. Sigaty is CLUELESS. Unless, of course, you also believe it takes 3 HTs to make an Archon in BW or that Blizzard really wants his mother to be able to play and enjoy the game. T____T
And thanks. Well if you believe a producer working on SC2 is clueless, then fair enough hehe :-)
You seem ignorant.
Just look up some of the stupid things Sigaty has said in the past...
|
Sweden33723 Posts
I think this is the only SC2 specific LAN comment posted in this thread:
StarCraftWire.net: Will it be possible to play Starcraft II at LAN Parties? Karune: While the idea is still there, the main focus right now is Battle.net and Multiplayer to determine whether or not LAN will be available.
|
On February 01 2009 15:53 x89titan wrote: ye lan is great for ppl who dont have valid cd keys lol. anyway i thought cs already brought esports to its highest.
e-sports at its highest should be compared to the Olympics or something. everyone knows about the creme de la creme players (lol cream of the cream)
|
On January 13 2009 10:21 Highways wrote: Bad decision.
Both Lan and Bnet have their own purposes and cannot be substituted for one another.
I agree.
Reasons for Lan:
- Dont need to get an actual internet subscription (that would cost a lot for staged events) - Reliable (because the computers are just connected to a router, and thats it)
Reasons for Bnet:
- You dont need to go over to your friend's house to play with them - You can face random people you have never met before
Sums it up
|
United States12270 Posts
On February 02 2009 06:39 Sonu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2009 10:21 Highways wrote: Bad decision.
Both Lan and Bnet have their own purposes and cannot be substituted for one another. I agree. Reasons for Lan: - Dont need to get an actual internet subscription (that would cost a lot for staged events) - Reliable (because the computers are just connected to a router, and thats it) Reasons for Bnet: - You dont need to go over to your friend's house to play with them - You can face random people you have never met before Sums it up
I think you're missing something. Battle.net will be in the game no matter what. The only question is whether LAN play will be in the game. So unless you're derailing the topic, it's not an "either LAN or Battle.net" argument, it's an "either LAN or nothing" argument. Battle.net isn't going anywhere.
|
On February 02 2009 06:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:39 Sonu wrote:On January 13 2009 10:21 Highways wrote: Bad decision.
Both Lan and Bnet have their own purposes and cannot be substituted for one another. I agree. Reasons for Lan: - Dont need to get an actual internet subscription (that would cost a lot for staged events) - Reliable (because the computers are just connected to a router, and thats it) Reasons for Bnet: - You dont need to go over to your friend's house to play with them - You can face random people you have never met before Sums it up I think you're missing something. Battle.net will be in the game no matter what. The only question is whether LAN play will be in the game. So unless you're derailing the topic, it's not an "either LAN or Battle.net" argument, it's an "either LAN or nothing" argument. Battle.net isn't going anywhere.
He's aware of that, hes just pointing out that both have their pros and cons and that both have their place depending on the conditions that someone wishes to play. BNet will never be as reliable as LAN when two computers are networked which is why both need to be implemented.
The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the problems with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for supporting the removal of LAN is that they think it won't affect them. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Pro-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the anti-LAN people.
|
|
|
|
|
|