|
On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:
Reasons against LAN
1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0.
That's just wrong.
No one uses IPX anymore, and when using TCP/IP or UDP/IP (which everyone has installed support for otherwise you wouldn't be able to use the intarweb) there is zero difference between LAN or the internet... the client connects to a server and that's it - be that server a local IP or an internet IP it doesnt matter at all. So from a programming standpoint, you throw out IPX support because you don't need it anymore, and program using TCP/IP or UDP/IP and then your game works everywhere with no extra work. You would have to do extra work not to make it work only over BNet and not locally, as that would be an artificial restriction.
|
I, personally, am neutral in this discussion. However, I would like to contribute two links which should be of interest to those participating.
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.
SOURCE: StarCraft Wire
Battle.net 2.0:
Updated match making system similiar to WarCraft III. Geo-location will be a factor in order to help reduce latency. While details are scarce, “community” and “social” improvements will be implemented to help gamers find like-minded players to game with.
SOURCE: StarCraft Zine
|
On February 03 2009 05:54 Tom Phoenix wrote:I, personally, am neutral in this discussion. However, I would like to contribute two links which should be of interest to those participating. Show nested quote +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. SOURCE: StarCraft WireShow nested quote +Battle.net 2.0:
Updated match making system similiar to WarCraft III. Geo-location will be a factor in order to help reduce latency. While details are scarce, “community” and “social” improvements will be implemented to help gamers find like-minded players to game with. SOURCE: StarCraft Zine
I don't really know what the second link is supposed to show, but the first one definitely means that they focus on BNet 2.0 primarily.
There's no real indication of their removing LAN. It's just said that it's of lesser importance to them. And based on how LAN was implemented in comparison to BNet, it seems like it's always been like this.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 02 2009 15:54 Shadowfury333 wrote:Reasons for LAN(which I'm sure I'm re-iterating): 1. Simplicity: Allowing players to play eachother without having to concern themselves with a third-party, accounts, or other extraneous details, is very useful, simple, and enjoyable. 2. Latency: LAN play is always faster than */IP play, even with LAN Latency hacks. Forcing people to play on a third-party server that may be too far away to provide reasonable response times (i.e. from countries in a great deal of the southern hemisphere, notably NZ(could Plexa please confirm this) and South Africa) is a great way to piss them off and turn them off from your game. 3. Re Patching: Patches can be handled offline with manual updates or .exe/.mpq copying over USB drives or direct connections. I remember the last school tournament we had to synchronize maps, which is conceptually similar(though handled both by direct copying and the built-in download functionality). As well, if another 1.16.0 occurs, we don't want to be all stuck using a sub-par patch because some exec is paranoid about "piracy", an often counterproductive attitude.
Latency - Again, in-game latency is affected by the connection between players, NOT the server. Bnet2 will play at LAN latency, even over a LAN.
Patching - Just because LAN allows old patches doesn't mean it's an advantage. If that were so, you should ask Blizzard to make Bnet2 compatible with old patches just in case they fuck up again. I rather they just not fuck up again, cuz carrying both 1.15.3 and 1.16.0 didn't seem like a real solution.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 02 2009 16:08 LosingID8 wrote:
wait, did you just say that there is a demand for (offline) LAN stats? lol.
Offline stats - I did pull this one out of my ass, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to input tournament results and manually matchmake all the time. I mean, that's a computer's job, isn't it? I don't mind for a ten-year-old game; but it's 2009, it's SC2, and Bnet2 can handle tournaments.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 02 2009 17:10 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:On February 02 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game. Reasons against LAN 1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0. Simplicity? It is much simpler to join a game via LAN than it is to join a game via Bnet. LAN requiring too much effort? They already built LAN for the blizzard events. It requires next to no effort at all. Show nested quote +2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place. No-one cares about profiles or ladder stats on LAN. Show nested quote +3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems. Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy. It will barely even deter it. If someone can work out how to use hamachi, they can work out how to get onto a private server. Also blizzard will use whatever anti-piracy measures they deem fit. Just because there is no LAN mode will not stop them from implementing any DRM they want. Your reasoning is flawed. Show nested quote +4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways.
Ever played a game where the most recent patch wasnt perfect? (Cough 1.16). How is your inability to realise that someone has a different version to you a con of LAN mode? It sounds more like a con in your ability to think logically. Removing LAN will not stop people from being dumb. Now I believe Ive sufficiently countered your four arguments. Try to counter my four arguments. 1. No internet connection for ( insert one of hundreds of reasons here). LAN still allows these people to play multiplayer. 2. Battlenet is down. LAN still allows people to play multiplayer during the down time. 3. People behind firewalls which prevent them from logging on to battlenet. LAN still allows them to play on their network. 4. People who want to play multiplayer on a different patch version for ( insert one of many reasons here) LAN wont force people to play on a specific patch version.
Bnet server down - Having a LAN does nothing for people who planned on playing online alone; in ten years of Brood War, it happened ONCE when both Bnet went down AND I had a friend to LAN with instead, and I LAN pretty often.
No internet connection - I already acknowledged this as a good reason for LAN, but I did mention how Blizzard is probably ignoring this target audience (small population, can't be advertised, probably pirating). I would bet the SC2 box has written somewhere system requirements: broadband connection (for multiplayer)
+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2009 00:37 FrozenArbiter wrote:Secondly lol "annoying cd-check"  ? I just kept my CD in my drive until the day Blizzard came out with their own no-cd patch, didn't find it annoying.
Some people actually used their CD drives. Besides, the CD check delays every game start for a few seconds while drives were spinning up. I can't believe you lived with that. To each his own.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2009 04:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:
Reasons against LAN
1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0. That's just wrong. No one uses IPX anymore, and when using TCP/IP or UDP/IP (which everyone has installed support for otherwise you wouldn't be able to use the intarweb) there is zero difference between LAN or the internet... the client connects to a server and that's it - be that server a local IP or an internet IP it doesnt matter at all. So from a programming standpoint, you throw out IPX support because you don't need it anymore, and program using TCP/IP or UDP/IP and then your game works everywhere with no extra work. You would have to do extra work not to make it work only over BNet and not locally, as that would be an artificial restriction.
IPX - You are correct in that no one uses IPX anymore (though I certainly remember using it). My point is that the day is coming when no one would use a computer without internet support. Most people I know can't use a computer if it lost its internet connection today. Hell, my friend can't use his TV without an internet connection. Even if the LAN option is still in SC2, it'll be gone from most games soon.
Programming - It's not that they're trying to restrict LAN, it's just they're not willing to put much into it. Even Brood War's LAN was significantly less developed then Battle.net. Although some people enjoyed that simplicity, the argument is that developing two interfaces is harder than developing one. Certainly some features designated for Bnet2 would be desirable on LAN as well (Esports features, ability to stream or obs games, voice chat, private messenging, tournament support, etc). How much effort should they put into the LAN mode? Should they please everyone and develop it to Bnet2's standards? Should they keep the one from the Blizzard events and be criticized for under-developing it? Or should they just remove LAN altogether and point out that Bnet2 supports LAN play?
I'm not against a LAN mode. God knows I've used it more than most. But it's not the end of the world if it's gone. And knowing Blizzard's goals with this game, they're likely keeping LAN around in some simplistic form.
|
if I may bring this thread back to its original course. The only new heights s][c will reach involve vivendi profit margins from three seperate releases and a monetized battle.net
This is all while trying to salvage foreign e-sports in light of recent events. The foreigners who would have been payed to play s][c the day it releases got sacked... now they play ρoker.
|
Aslong as the game is good to watch. It'll suceed and push esports to new heights.
|
On February 03 2009 18:46 hunter3 wrote:
Latency - Again, in-game latency is affected by the connection between players, NOT the server. Bnet2 will play at LAN latency, even over a LAN.
But there IS latency simply because you have to connect through the internet and not directly through LAN (using a router).
Is that so hard to understand?
Patching - Just because LAN allows old patches doesn't mean it's an advantage. If that were so, you should ask Blizzard to make Bnet2 compatible with old patches just in case they fuck up again. I rather they just not fuck up again, cuz carrying both 1.15.3 and 1.16.0 didn't seem like a real solution.
It's unlikely they'll ever do anything like that. They never admit their mistakes, and allowing for something like that would mean just that.
Not to mention ladder would have to support those patches somehow, which could potentially split the ladder population if some balance changes occur which some find dubious.
Offline stats - I did pull this one out of my ass, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to input tournament results and manually matchmake all the time. I mean, that's a computer's job, isn't it? I don't mind for a ten-year-old game; but it's 2009, it's SC2, and Bnet2 can handle tournaments.
What tournaments are you talking about? Pro? Amateur? Registering every tournament would be more of a hassle. Not to mention being limited to BNet.
And KeSPA can handle stats just fine.
Bnet server down - Having a LAN does nothing for people who planned on playing online alone; in ten years of Brood War, it happened ONCE when both Bnet went down AND I had a friend to LAN with instead, and I LAN pretty often.
LOL, you can't be serious. O_o
If you plan to play alone, then why can't you just use one of the dozens of Hamachi networks established by TeamLiquid, GosuGamers or pretty much any notable SC site whenever BNet's down?
No internet connection - I already acknowledged this as a good reason for LAN, but I did mention how Blizzard is probably ignoring this target audience (small population, can't be advertised, probably pirating). I would bet the SC2 box has written somewhere system requirements: broadband connection (for multiplayer)
Baseless assumptions, much?
Why would they choose to ignore ANY target audience? ;;
Some people actually used their CD drives. Besides, the CD check delays every game start for a few seconds while drives were spinning up. I can't believe you lived with that. To each his own.
Why don't you just mirror the CD onto your hard drive if it's so annoying? It's the first time I see anyone complain about this.
IPX - You are correct in that no one uses IPX anymore (though I certainly remember using it). My point is that the day is coming when no one would use a computer without internet support. Most people I know can't use a computer if it lost its internet connection today. Hell, my friend can't use his TV without an internet connection. Even if the LAN option is still in SC2, it'll be gone from most games soon.
What's your point exactly?
Programming - It's not that they're trying to restrict LAN, it's just they're not willing to put much into it. Even Brood War's LAN was significantly less developed then Battle.net. Although some people enjoyed that simplicity, the argument is that developing two interfaces is harder than developing one. Certainly some features designated for Bnet2 would be desirable on LAN as well (Esports features, ability to stream or obs games, voice chat, private messenging, tournament support, etc). How much effort should they put into the LAN mode? Should they please everyone and develop it to Bnet2's standards? Should they keep the one from the Blizzard events and be criticized for under-developing it? Or should they just remove LAN altogether and point out that Bnet2 supports LAN play?
Quite the contrary - that's exactly what this topic's about.
Nobody I know cares that LAN is underdeveloped compared to BNet. T_____T The point is they should just make it available and playable - that's all we want...
Have you actually followed the thread? No one ever suggested that they should try to make LAN closer to BNet standard. Where did you get that "developing two interfaces" thing from? Did you, by any chance, make it up? T_____T
I'm not against a LAN mode. God knows I've used it more than most. But it's not the end of the world if it's gone. And knowing Blizzard's goals with this game, they're likely keeping LAN around in some simplistic form.
And that's all we need.
Can you read the damn thread before you actuallly post? ;/
|
United States12270 Posts
On February 04 2009 01:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 18:46 hunter3 wrote:
Latency - Again, in-game latency is affected by the connection between players, NOT the server. Bnet2 will play at LAN latency, even over a LAN. But there IS latency simply because you have to connect through the internet and not directly through LAN (using a router). Is that so hard to understand?
I think you're misunderstanding. Starcraft's netcode, while stable, is archaic. More modern games increase the throughput to suit the capabilities of the connection. I'll go over it very quickly:
Scenario A:
Let's say you're playing Starcraft on Battle.net with 2 other people, one locally and one on the other side of your town. Your ping to the local player will be about 10ms and your ping to the Internet player will be about 50ms. However, your house's ping to the Battle.net server is 80ms, and your Internet opponent's ping is around 90ms. End result: everyone plays at 90ms latency.
Scenario B:
Let's say you're playing Starcraft on Battle.net, but it's just you and your LAN partner (let's say you both like to talk to your Bnet buddies). Your ping to him is 10ms, but your ping to the server is 80ms, so your game will play at 80ms.
Scenario C:
Let's say you're playing Quake 3 online. You're playing with 2 other people, one on your LAN and one across town, and you're hosting the game. Your ping is 0, your LAN partner gets about 10ms, and the guy across town gets 50ms. Now obviously, Quake 3 is a different beast because there is no master validation server to heartbeat and check during gameplay. Also unlike Starcraft, your actions are independent of everyone else's, and the connection doesn't slow down to match the slowest player's connection. Nevertheless, this is the optimal connection model for everyone.
Hypothetical Scenario D:
Let's say you're playing Starcraft 2 online. SC2 has made considerable optimizations to its netcode. You're playing with a LAN player and an online opponent on Battle.net. Now, instead of every packet being routed through the validation server, those packets can be checked against other opponents' clients, thereby taking the server out of the loop temporarily (except for keepalive pings and Bnet-related messages). However, due to the nature of the game, you're still going at the slowest player's speed, so if you get 10ms to your LAN partner and 50ms to your across-town buddy, you'd all be playing at 50ms. Still leagues better than the 90ms you were playing at before.
Hypothetical Scenario E:
Same as above, but now it's just you and your LAN partner playing online. You would each be playing at 10ms, or LAN latency, barring some keepalive spikes to the server.
This is how I envision Starcraft 2's netcode. No redundancy, and all security/validation checks are done at login rather than constantly throughout the game, freeing up a lot of excess bandwidth (relatively speaking when you're talking in the millisecond range, anyway).
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 03 2009 18:46 hunter3 wrote:
IPX - You are correct in that no one uses IPX anymore (though I certainly remember using it). My point is that the day is coming when no one would use a computer without internet support. Most people I know can't use a computer if it lost its internet connection today. Hell, my friend can't use his TV without an internet connection. Even if the LAN option is still in SC2, it'll be gone from most games soon.
Any basis for this? Its hard to say that removing LAN will be a trend when I can think of no major, successful online multiplayer games that have eschewed LAN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
