EPTFor custom games Bnet only setup the game, ingame it is p2p.
SC2 will push e-sports to new heights - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
For custom games Bnet only setup the game, ingame it is p2p. | ||
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
On January 14 2009 00:23 axion wrote: You can still do this, its just the connection between you has been changed. But if it's going to be the same then why even remove LAN? All taking away LAN capabilities does is add more complexity to a simple task, i.e. connecting two or more local computers to play with eachother. It also generates more latency, and if you go to a competitive LAN party (which many are) even the slightest latency causes major headaches. Just look at Starcraft, the difference between LAN latency and B.net latency. People keep saying "oh, you can still have LAN latency over Bnet 2.0" no, no you can't. The only reason that works in Starcraft is because it's an ENGINE based thing, not a connection based issue. By forcing everyone to move away from LAN, it's going to innately add more latency to the connection just because you're going through the internet instead of a simple local connection. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32161 Posts
| ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
On January 14 2009 03:15 Zelniq wrote: i dont get why they would force players to use battle.net 2.0. can't they just make bnet2.0 so good that people prefer to use it anyway? and if they want/need to use lan they should be able to? ;/ This is an extremely good point. This is the type of thing developers need to strive for. Instead of axing potential areas for piracy, make the part that's difficult to pirate properly (i.e. a connection to Battle.net) better than anything the pirates can come up with. | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
On January 13 2009 12:14 GTR-2-Go wrote: maybe because WoW is a MMORPG On January 13 2009 22:32 ixion wrote: Wow ur a retard.. u know that WoW is an mmorpg right? if there was a LAN option people would cheat so hard. Seriously, was my point that hard to understand? | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
Damn | ||
|
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
God damn it, why is there only one competent RTS developer in the whole wide world? No matter what Blizzard does, I won't be able to boycott them  | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
On January 14 2009 04:41 cgrinker wrote: To ven, the thing about MMo's is that they have consistantly higher latencies than p2p games. If you look at that little bar (I don't play wow so I couldn't tell you) It will put your ping at around 200ms and say that that is "good." that really isn't the case for a game where you need things to work at the correct time. You're kidding me, right? | ||
|
Daewon
127 Posts
In the end Blizzard will probably make a cynical calculation as to whether or not the gains from putting all players in one place, getting revenues from subscriptions, etc. will outweigh the losses in sales from those who arent gonna be able to play the game, due to truly shitty connections. Obviously removing LAN from SC would be a nogo but remember, SC is based on 10 year old coding/multiplayer techniques. 10 years is forever, when it comes to PC's / coding. I think the B.Net2.0 latency will impress no matter what Blizzard decides to go with. | ||
|
hixhix
1158 Posts
| ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
On January 14 2009 05:25 hixhix wrote: Whoever says removing LAN is fine is just extremely retarded. agreed and i add my own point, as retarded as someone that favors more micro than macro in star2 | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12273 Posts
Now, if Bnet2.0 supports things like an extensive Ladder, external tournament/ranking support, and dynamic data rates which scale beyond the maximum allotted speed for online play (thereby minimizing lag in LAN-environment multiplayer games), then there really is no reason for a LAN option beyond piracy protection (although again, private servers will inevitably surface). We've already seen the parsing and rankings of War3, which has a very powerful and sophisticated Ladder system. A similar system for SC2 is just a stone's throw away. We've also seen they support community and sponsored events through SC's new external Ladder support. If this is expanded for SC2, maintaining third-party Ladders or tournaments will be easy. All they have to do is implement the third aspect I mentioned (latency) and LAN play is made completely obsolete. I wouldn't doubt that Blizzard has grandiose plans such as these for Bnet2.0, as they've already claimed it to be an ambitious venture. Assuming all of these features are added, what then could you argue in favor of LAN play beyond simply more options? | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
1. no internet connection required 2. very easy to host and find games (you don't have to fiddle with gamenames and passwords and such) Especially the first point is really important to some people so LAN mode will never be obsolete unless you have some kind of Offline mode for BNet. | ||
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
On January 14 2009 06:37 Excalibur_Z wrote: Originally, I didn't see the point of removing LAN, particularly because private servers could emerge. However, after thinking about it a bit more, it does make sense after some considerations. Removing LAN means Blizzard doesn't need to add DRM to the game, which is a major complaint about EA games, and that gameplay can be regulated through Bnet2.0. Now, if Bnet2.0 supports things like an extensive Ladder, external tournament/ranking support, and dynamic data rates which scale beyond the maximum allotted speed for online play (thereby minimizing lag in LAN-environment multiplayer games), then there really is no reason for a LAN option beyond piracy protection (although again, private servers will inevitably surface). We've already seen the parsing and rankings of War3, which has a very powerful and sophisticated Ladder system. A similar system for SC2 is just a stone's throw away. We've also seen they support community and sponsored events through SC's new external Ladder support. If this is expanded for SC2, maintaining third-party Ladders or tournaments will be easy. All they have to do is implement the third aspect I mentioned (latency) and LAN play is made completely obsolete. I wouldn't doubt that Blizzard has grandiose plans such as these for Bnet2.0, as they've already claimed it to be an ambitious venture. Assuming all of these features are added, what then could you argue in favor of LAN play beyond simply more options? Latency can not be fixed, you're still playing over the internet, not a direct LAN connection. The only reason it's really "fixed" with things like Chaos in BW is because the latency issues has to do with the game engine itself, because even a crappy internet connection can play the game with little ping. I suspect that SC2 will require a heavier internet connection than BW. Sure, it may not be very significant, especially for people who just play casually, but for professional gaming the difference between 40 and 140 ping is phenomenal. And how does this eliminate the need for DRM? Or rather, how does LAN validate a need for DRM? There are going to be ways to play with your friends online other than Battle.net, legally or not. So what difference does LAN make in stopping piracy? You want people to use B.net2, then make it a better choice than LAN, not the only choice. | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
However, you people talk as if Battle.net 2.0 is going to use the same technology as the original Battle.net, which they haven't updated in years. The whole code is being built from scratch. It's kind of like saying Battle.net the first is an amoeba and Battle.net 2.0 is a mammal. Software evolves in the same way that creatures do. You'll probably be able to see some similarities between BNet 2.0 and WarIII b.net. They could be distant cousins, I guess. But so far the complaints I see are transferring their impressions of the old b.net to something they haven't even seen. Will there be problems initially? Yes. Battle.net was a mess when Starcraft first became a hit. Battle.net CRASHED when Diablo II was released. World of Warcraft was plagued by lag in the first few months of release unfathomable in the game as it is today (and people still complain). You WILL have problems when Starcraft II is released, and again when Diablo III is released. On the other hand, I would put stock in to just how good b.net is going to be for the competitive scene. A year after it's release, I'll bet people won't even consider a LAN setup; the network code will be better, more robust, and all-around make the old battle.net look like it is (and it really is) outdated. And the people behind firewalls: well, it's Russian Roulette, but don't give up all hope. | ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
On January 14 2009 02:37 bubblegumbo wrote: All competitive e-sport games will have LAN support, D3 is a totally different matter compared to SC2. Can anyone imagine taking FPS tournaments without LAN seriously? No. The same demand for ping applies for RTS games. Quake Live doesn't have LAN support. it's played over servers provided by ID only. or at least that was the situation some 6 months ago while i was still playing the game | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On January 14 2009 07:27 s.a.y wrote: Quake Live doesn't have LAN support. it's played over servers provided by ID only. or at least that was the situation some 6 months ago while i was still playing the game Also, whose to say D3 won't have a place in e-sports. I could definitely see that happening. | ||
| ||
