|
On June 30 2009 07:31 CROrens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote:
There will be LAN on Battle.net.
The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. Well thats kinda the point of LAN, playing MP offline... Imagine a LAN party with 20 people, so now they all have to be online... meaning they have to share the same connection... lag much?
What? Have you ever tried playing on the same network online? Its practically the same as LAN because the data is going within the network. Its not like BNET hosts custom games anyway, its all hosted on your side. BNET is just a chat/matchmaking lobby and a server for ladder games.
Some of these comments just don't make any sense and are just blind outrage.
On June 30 2009 07:21 L wrote:
My SC experience, and I'm pretty sure there are MANY other people in the same boat, was defined by games in LAN. Diablo 2, by contrast, was never a lan-centric game for me. I wouldn't give a shit if they gutted that option. But for starcraft? The starcraft that grew up as a game to share between friends? No. I'm sorry. Its not a small deal.
Play on bnet together from the same room, whats the difference? At least have your complaints grounded in reality. The lack of LAN doesn't prevent any of the things you talked about. All you need is a router and an internet connection (oh wait, you pretty much need those anyway).
|
I can't help but laugh at those threatening to not buy s2 because of this, because for some reason I already know you will be buying it.
|
The only somewhat plausible complaint (that I can think of) against not having LAN is having spotty wireless connection. Say you and your friend are on the same wireless connection which is sporadic, at best. Instead of using your $5 hub to play a nice lagless LAN game you are forced to connect to BNet. While your latency might be low, the intermittent connection would still cause problems.
Can't say I mind. What kind of LAN cafe, LAN party, or any place in the world doesn't have an internet connection these days? You can still play with your LAN friends with no lag whatsoever since BNet 2.0 won't have the nagle algorithm enforced.
Not that Blizzard really needed the help but this pretty much destroys any type of piracy short of single player gaming.
|
Play on bnet together from the same room, whats the difference? The difference is that, in both instances, none of us were actually online. The lan center I talked about for my grade school birthday was actually a LAN center. They had a few consoles hooked up to TVs, some computers in lan, and like 4 with a shared internet connection for people to play counterstrike. We pretty much took all their other computers.
In the second instance, the computer lab was defunct; there was no internet. The cables had been rerouted to new labs, so we just rigged up a router and played on our own after installing the games.
I could mention a number of impromptu matches I've had at university and at high school using laptops and spare computers off the grid, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The point is that the game was social. We were there connected together. Why go on battle.net with 56k modems when half our buddies didn't even have the net?
On a technical level, sure there's the entire ping issue which is massive, but that wasn't 'it' for us. The entire point was that we weren't a small group having to lock a custom game on battlenet so that our friends could shuffle in. We were 8 buddies, THE 8 buddies. We didn't need to remember passwords, we could change our names to L is a retard lol! we didnt' need to walk around the room going "okay guys, the pass is "bananas". We just said "join L" and we were off. When we regamed: "join L" and we were off again.
If you didn't have this experience with starcraft, and I'm not sure many of the newer post-broadband people would have such an experience, then you simply wouldn't get it. The default response is "oh yeah, just go online and do it", but that's not where the magic of the game was. That's not where I was captured by starcraft. I was captured because starcraft was a social event. Starcraft was something I'd look forward to because my friends would be there. Now there's a fairly large hurdle involved if I want that experience. A hurdle which shouldn't be there. A hurdle which is between me and what I wanted to get out of this game.
I'll just soldier on and wait for D3.
|
On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote:
There will be LAN on Battle.net.
The only people this affects is those without an internet connection.
U know what LAN means right? I believe you mean a latency as good as on LAN?
|
On June 30 2009 08:22 Valio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote:
There will be LAN on Battle.net.
The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. U know what LAN means right? I believe you mean a latency as good as on LAN?
No I mean LAN.
|
United States2822 Posts
On June 30 2009 08:23 SearingShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 08:22 Valio wrote:On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote:
There will be LAN on Battle.net.
The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. U know what LAN means right? I believe you mean a latency as good as on LAN? No I mean LAN.
No you don't. LAN implies that you don't need an Internet connection to get on. Battle.Net 2.0 does.
|
Right, wouldn't playing on Battle.net be considered a wide area network (WAN)?
Battle.net doesn't sound very "local" 
|
For the thousandth time, if all players in a Bnet game lobby are on the same LAN, once the game starts it will behave EXACTLY as if you were using LAN mode in War3 or Starcraft
|
United States2822 Posts
On June 30 2009 08:37 theqat wrote:
For the thousandth time, if all players in a Bnet game lobby are on the same LAN, once the game starts it will behave EXACTLY as if you were using LAN mode in War3 or Starcraft
The issue is the fact that they need to have Internet access first. Many large-scale LANs operate just on a large network without Internet access.
|
On June 30 2009 08:42 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 08:37 theqat wrote:
For the thousandth time, if all players in a Bnet game lobby are on the same LAN, once the game starts it will behave EXACTLY as if you were using LAN mode in War3 or Starcraft The issue is the fact that they need to have Internet access first. Many large-scale LANs operate just on a large network without Internet access.
Not only this but sometimes people are behind firewall and can't play on bnet or log in to bnet, so LAN play is the only option.
Blizzard really sailed the FAIL BOAT on this one.
|
Well, at least BNet remains free
|
Lag isn't really an issue with the new Bnet. Blizzard has stated dozens of times that they are dedicated to reducing lag, so I can guarantee than any built-in latency will get removed, and the netcode will be drastically improved.
The main issue with Bnet 2.0 is the fact that players will most likely need an internet connection to play offline since all signs are pointing to Blizzard taking the Steam approach with Bnet. This of course is a big problem since people have lives outside their wired home. People might go visit friends who don't have internet. Some people travel a lot and can't always bring their internet with them. Some people live on colleges that block BattleNet due to its firewall. Some people gather for LAN parties or cafes that don't have online capabilities.
Internet may be more widespread, but it's far from omnipresent. Getting rid of LAN only counteracts the very goal Blizzard is trying to achieve. People will be MUCH more likely to play Bnet after trying out LAN rather than not having multiplayer at all due to lack of internet. Still hoping that Blizzard either reconsiders, or has a solution that doesn't require internet.
|
Just what kind of shitty large-scale LANs do you go to?
There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty.
|
On June 30 2009 09:04 furymonkey wrote:
Just what kind of shitty large-scale LANs do you go to?
There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty.
What's with this "no one complains" business? Even to this day I still see a lot of opposition to Steam, and I've experienced problems with it as well. Trying to play a game while Steam is down isn't the funnest thing in the world. Just because Valve isn't bursting in flames doesn't mean that everyone is perfectly fine with them.
|
On June 30 2009 07:36 ManWithCheese wrote:
I can't help but laugh at those threatening to not buy s2 because of this, because for some reason I already know you will be buying it.
u dont know
u believe
thats more like religion
|
|
|
People already addressed the issue that Bnet would be slower, so the only valid reason for opposing this is because you lack internet.
To everybody complaining that they won't be able to play multi-player due to lack of internet, sucks to be you. You have my sympathies. The vast majority of us don't give a crap as this change won't affect us one bit. Go ahead, don't buy SC2; I guarantee you the impact would be next to nothing, maybe 5k in sales max. Times have changed since SC1; everyone has internet these days and broadband will continue to proliferate. This is a good decision by Blizzard; they'll definitely gain more sales than they lose.
|
United States2822 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:04 furymonkey wrote:
Just what kind of shitty large-scale LANs do you go to?
There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty.
I know PAX, while not a huge LAN, doesn't have Internet access there from experience.
|
*We're sorry. Blizzard servers are encountering an error. We are aware of the problem and are currently working on it. We apologize for the inconvenience.*
Repeat once an hour for 6 hours and you get.....ugh.
What would be lost by allowing lan? Seriously nothing is gained by cutting out a very easy feature to keep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
