|
I'm surprised no one has mentioned why Blizzard didn't allow online replays in War3 and why they won't be doing it in SC2, so I'll offer my explanation (not 100% sure but I'm fairly certain this is the reason).
In the original starcraft, map files are very small. The map data was stored in each replay along with each players actions. That way, you could host the replay, every one would download the file (map + player actions), and you could all watch together.
In War3, map file sizes increased dramatically, especially for some UMS maps (DotA is about 3mb, some other maps are far bigger again). In order to watch this replay online, you'd need to save the map data + player actions in the replay, so that players who don't actually own that particular map can download it in the replay file and be able to watch. The problem with this system is that every single DotA replay would be 3mb+ in size, and players would constantly be re-downloading huge chunks of repeated map information just to access the unique player action data . To remedy this problem, blizzard changed the way replays are saved in War3: You don't save the map data in the replay file, you ONLY save the player action data. That way, to watch any given replay, you require the map file stored on your hard-drive separately to the player-action data in the replay file.
This would make sense back in the days of War3; broadband connections still weren't mainstream, so huge downloads just to watch a replay were obviously (and rightfully so) considered ridiculous in Blizzards eyes. That's why they separated map data from replay data.
In SC2, I'm not sure exactly how it would work. Blizzard could revert to the old SC:BW ways of storing player action + map all in the one file, but again this would be burning through bandwidth and hard drive space unnecessarily. It's nowhere near the same degree of a problem today as it was in War3's time, because we have many more broadband connections and hard drive capacity has dramatically increased. But it still makes some kind of logical sense as to why Blizzard are continuing to take this approach with SC2 maps. And who knows? If the average SC2 UMS is 20mb+, then I'd be glad to not have to save the map data in every replay -.-. Imagine 100 replays on a 20mb UMS map? That would be 2gig worth of data stored on your drive -.- and only about 500kb from each replay would actually represent the player actions, most of it would be redundant map data. However, doing it the war3 way would only take up about 30megabytes.
I'm fairly sure Blizzard could solve this problem to make a 'best of both worlds' approach, but the solution that I've imagined is very convoluted and would be difficult for Blizzard to implement. Just be aware that Blizzard isn't doing this for laziness sake, there is a very legitimate reason behind it.
|
I would DL 300 megabites replays if it was worth it, same thing with UMS SIZE IS NOT A PROBLEM NOWDAYS OMGZ
|
dude, there is no way UMS maps will be more than a few MBs.
and the problem you went on about for six paragraphs can be fixed very easily: Download map and player action data separately (i.e. as two separate files). SC2 checks for the existence of the necessary map file (just as it would if you enter a game with a map which you don't have in SC1), and doesn't download the map if it finds it. Done.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
LilClinkin, War3 mapsizes and replay sizes are *almost identical to SC*.
I don't give a fuck if I can't watch a replay of an UMS, I can't in SC1 anyway. I also couldn't care less if the replay was 5 mb instead of 100 kb - it's 2009!!
Oh and apparently multiple MB ums maps are no problems, so why are replays?
It really still does nothing to explain why you can't watch replays in WC3.
Why not just download the map from the person you are dling the replay from? He obviously has it.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
LilClinkin,
This is such an easy problem to solve,
1) Distribute actions only, and require players to have a map in order to view the replay (kick those who have not when replay is started)
2) Distribute actions, but if someone doesn't have the map send it to him from those players who have it.
This is absolutely no problem to implement.
This is so weak by Blizzard  I have written a huge 3 page post to justify their decision to take out LAN, but I don't even want to post it. Online replays is such an important function, and I agree very much with FrozenArbiter in that it was one of the main turnoffs of Warcraft 3.
|
Damn blizzard, Battle.net 2.0 is going to very bad if this continues to happen, no having LAN is ok sad, and now no replays with friends?? COME ON WTF!!!!!!!!
all the ladder, the whispering, the clan functions or whatever doesnt means anything compared to be able to watch replays with my friends at the same time!!!!!
blizzard i hope u do the right thing and put it in release and not leaving it as a w3 crap.
|
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy.
|
LilClinkin you are wrong, to be able to watch replays in w3 u still need to have the map, if u dont have the map u cant watch the replay.
Blizzard is being just stupid, this is ONE MAJOR ISSUE.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 05 2009 10:46 DeCoup wrote:
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy.
Yes, seriously - they don't need to implement rewind for multiple players if they can't do that for release. I'm pretty sure that'd give them better reviews than not having it at all lol.
|
On July 05 2009 10:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2009 10:46 DeCoup wrote:
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy. Yes, seriously - they don't need to implement rewind for multiple players if they can't do that for release. I'm pretty sure that'd give them better reviews than not having it at all lol.
Blizzard live for reviews and pr. Don't worry the online replays will be at the release or else blizzard will have to live through the worst shit storm ever made about a game.
|
On July 05 2009 11:14 Lobbo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2009 10:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On July 05 2009 10:46 DeCoup wrote:
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy. Yes, seriously - they don't need to implement rewind for multiple players if they can't do that for release. I'm pretty sure that'd give them better reviews than not having it at all lol. Blizzard live for reviews and pr. Don't worry the online replays will be at the release or else blizzard will have to live through the worst shit storm ever made about a game.
That's going a little too far. SC2 isn't going to get bad reviews over no online replays. It certainly didn't stop WC3 from getting rave reviews after all.
Still kinda disappointed though.
|
"It's ready when it's ready"
2 days later
"We're gonna make half a game and the add alot of crap later."
Fuck it.
|
On July 05 2009 11:14 Lobbo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2009 10:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On July 05 2009 10:46 DeCoup wrote:
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy. Yes, seriously - they don't need to implement rewind for multiple players if they can't do that for release. I'm pretty sure that'd give them better reviews than not having it at all lol. Blizzard live for reviews and pr. Don't worry the online replays will be at the release or else blizzard will have to live through the worst shit storm ever made about a game.
You are delusional, some smalls forums nerd-raging is nothing resembling a ''shit storm'' and I doubt it will affect reviews or sales. At all.
|
I have been, admittedly, blindly optimistic about SC2. Never letting any of the shit get me down, like Lan and shit.
But not being able to watch replays with friends online is simply fucking retarded. I'm sorry. How can you expect to surpass brood war when you downgrade such an important aspect of competitive play.
W
T
F?
The technology exists already. Why can't it be implemented? Make rewind SP only for all I care.
This is no small issue. Can they really not fit this feature into the release, especially considering a release isn't even set?
For some reason this is making me very angry and now I must leave.
|
Well, at least they were being honest in saying they dont want events without internet to be able to hold tournaments.
They also were honest about not wanting third party programs allowing people an alternative place to play the game online.
What really upsets me is he calls iccup 'pirating' when in reality it is things like iccup that have kept Starcraft popular this late in its life. It is because of LAN, iccup, and other things like that that made it as famous it is today. They are completely disregarding it and essentially saying 'thanks for all the hard work on this game we stopped supporting years ago, but what you did was wrong and we are stopping it now'.
Its so very stupid.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
The ICCUP question was stupid. "Are you gonna let people pirate your game?"
What the hell else CAN he say? No matter if he has a personal opinion of ICCUP as being fine (no idea if he does), there's really no other answer he could give. I mean they turn a blind eye to them since they don't make money off it (if anyone recalls, gamei lasted about 3 months once they started charging), which is really all that you can ask.
On July 05 2009 11:45 Shade692003 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2009 11:14 Lobbo wrote:On July 05 2009 10:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On July 05 2009 10:46 DeCoup wrote:
The only reason I can think of for not shipping with multiplayer replay is some complication with the new 'rewind' and time skip features, or those drawing on the screen and ghost building features they have planned for commentators and coaches. Maybe they want that feature working for it too. But honestly this is fucking stupid. Even if it was more limited than BW and updated later i'd be happy. Yes, seriously - they don't need to implement rewind for multiple players if they can't do that for release. I'm pretty sure that'd give them better reviews than not having it at all lol. Blizzard live for reviews and pr. Don't worry the online replays will be at the release or else blizzard will have to live through the worst shit storm ever made about a game. You are delusional, some smalls forums nerd-raging is nothing resembling a ''shit storm'' and I doubt it will affect reviews or sales. At all.
He's talking about the press obviously.. I don't think they are gonna get as much shit about this as they should, which is unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on how you look at it).
|
Even though it was explicitly and unambiguously said, and even clarified right after, I'm still hoping he misspoke. Could've swore they said before you could. This is a feature worth delaying over.
|
On July 05 2009 10:00 FrozenArbiter wrote:
LilClinkin, War3 mapsizes and replay sizes are *almost identical to SC*.
WC3 maps are a full MB bigger than SC maps. Replay sizes are similar, but that's because WC3 reps don't include the map.
|
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGG
I'VE BEEN OK WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING BLIZZARD HAS BEEN DOING... BUT NOW THIS... WHAT THE FUCK.
im so angry right now.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 05 2009 12:29 Daniri wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2009 10:00 FrozenArbiter wrote:
LilClinkin, War3 mapsizes and replay sizes are *almost identical to SC*.
WC3 maps are a full MB bigger than SC maps. Replay sizes are similar, but that's because WC3 reps don't include the map.
c:\spel\Warcraft III\Maps\Frozen Throne\(4)CentaurGrove.w3x
Size: 177 KB
C:\spel\Starcraft\Maps\BroodWar\Ladder\(6)Medusa.scx
Size: 155 kb
WC3 maps are only slightly bigger than SC maps unless they have extensive triggers, I'm pretty sure. The smallest map in the Frozen Throne folder is 65 KB (a 4 player map).
The smallest map in the BroodWar folder is 65 kb (a 2 player map).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
