- Status
Humans think
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2009
- 178
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]MDillenbeck[/nom]I'm not familiar with battle.net at all. Can I ask someone to conjecture on the game performance difference of running a large-scale LAN party (say over a 24 port 100 megabit switch) versus having the same number of users have to go through a single shared home user broadband account?[/citation]
It all depends on how the game utilizes resources I guess. I have a theoretical 24/1 Mbps dsl line, practically 17/1 Mbps, and I have been playing Warcraft III TFT using DoTA custom map for a number of years and I can assure you that when you have more than 3 players on this line, lag begins (even in Garena), delay, spikes, jitter even disconnections are frequent. BNET unlike lan emulators (Garena and hamachi), sure tackle spikes and jitter but have more lag and delay to compensate (it is more fault-tolerant). Also take into account that it is not bandwidth that is important for this kind of games but ping, a ping greater than 150ms sure frustrates skilled RTS players. In net cafes (where they use dedicated low ping lines) things can get worse due to the massive number of players, for 3 players I prefer playing from home.
Free Bnet -> good
Spawn not available -> bad but understandable
No lan -> inexcusable. Lan parties, custom gaming communities with ladders for custom games. The lan feature was what made me test War III before I realized that it is a great game that we could play regularly with extra value (DoTA and other community created custom maps), then with my friends we bought 5 boxes of War III plus expansion. Warcraft III was #1 in sales for a long time, why ruin a successful business plan?
It all depends on how the game utilizes resources I guess. I have a theoretical 24/1 Mbps dsl line, practically 17/1 Mbps, and I have been playing Warcraft III TFT using DoTA custom map for a number of years and I can assure you that when you have more than 3 players on this line, lag begins (even in Garena), delay, spikes, jitter even disconnections are frequent. BNET unlike lan emulators (Garena and hamachi), sure tackle spikes and jitter but have more lag and delay to compensate (it is more fault-tolerant). Also take into account that it is not bandwidth that is important for this kind of games but ping, a ping greater than 150ms sure frustrates skilled RTS players. In net cafes (where they use dedicated low ping lines) things can get worse due to the massive number of players, for 3 players I prefer playing from home.
Free Bnet -> good
Spawn not available -> bad but understandable
No lan -> inexcusable. Lan parties, custom gaming communities with ladders for custom games. The lan feature was what made me test War III before I realized that it is a great game that we could play regularly with extra value (DoTA and other community created custom maps), then with my friends we bought 5 boxes of War III plus expansion. Warcraft III was #1 in sales for a long time, why ruin a successful business plan?
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
astrodudepsu
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2009
- 340
- 0
- 18,790
1. The LAN thing is a legitimate complaint. For a game that was really made famous for it's popularity at LAN events, it seems that Blizzard is forgetting their roots so to speak.
2. The thing I hate hearing about though, is how blizzard is the greedy super-devil for releasing the game in three parts. It's BIG GAME. All told it will be ~90 single player missions. It deserves to be released seperately, as no one would pay the full price upfront. What are you people really complaining about anyway? The first installment of the game gives you full multiplayer capabilities. I mean playing through the SP campaigns once is fun, but who really spends MOST of their time playing SP? Anyone???? Get it over it children, in the real world people earn money for their work.
2. The thing I hate hearing about though, is how blizzard is the greedy super-devil for releasing the game in three parts. It's BIG GAME. All told it will be ~90 single player missions. It deserves to be released seperately, as no one would pay the full price upfront. What are you people really complaining about anyway? The first installment of the game gives you full multiplayer capabilities. I mean playing through the SP campaigns once is fun, but who really spends MOST of their time playing SP? Anyone???? Get it over it children, in the real world people earn money for their work.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]You guys can mod me down all you want, butStarCraft II: The most overhyped game of the decade.[/citation]
It's been the most overhyped game of the last 2 decades, Starcraft is so old that it's a surprise that anyone still remembers it, and anyone that does haven't been out of their houses or upgraded their computer to anything better to experience any of the new games, my friend has been playing the game for the last 13 years of his life, so I know when I say "anyone that still remembers starcraft hasn't gone out"
It's been the most overhyped game of the last 2 decades, Starcraft is so old that it's a surprise that anyone still remembers it, and anyone that does haven't been out of their houses or upgraded their computer to anything better to experience any of the new games, my friend has been playing the game for the last 13 years of his life, so I know when I say "anyone that still remembers starcraft hasn't gone out"
Hey Guys... maybe I'm missing something here.
Yes, it sucks that officially LAN will not be supported in SC2. Why does it suck? Because not everyone will necessarily have access to the internet at say a LAN party, and because the LAG experienced on an internet connection being shared amongst many can be really bad due to bottleneck of the upstream bandwidth (which is generally low on most residential based ADSL lines).
BUT
Really, getting an internet connection shouldn't be a problem, even at a LAN party (just have your buddy hosting the party, share his). We're still left with the LAG issue though, but are we really? Using the example of playing a WC3 game on Battle.net. My friends and I used to try this out, and would all connect to our battle.net accounts. I would host a game and they would all join. Now essentially Battle.Net was being used as an intermediatary for stats and initial handshaking etc. The actual TCP/IP packets were not going via the Battle.NET servers but via the person who hosted the game itself. Now TCP/IP is a routable protocol and therefore automatically able to find the shortest route for a packet to take, thus it will simply send all packets via the switch and between the clients and the server (person who hosted). So in a nutshell, for a locally hosted game, that uses Battle.NET for "authentication", the LAG should be virtually < 1 ms.
Assuming that SC2 works in a similar fashion (and I'm sure it will, as this is more a technical protocol issue, rather than a design one), we should be able to have LAN parties (as long as we can connect to the net), and have 0 lag.
Yes, it sucks that officially LAN will not be supported in SC2. Why does it suck? Because not everyone will necessarily have access to the internet at say a LAN party, and because the LAG experienced on an internet connection being shared amongst many can be really bad due to bottleneck of the upstream bandwidth (which is generally low on most residential based ADSL lines).
BUT
Really, getting an internet connection shouldn't be a problem, even at a LAN party (just have your buddy hosting the party, share his). We're still left with the LAG issue though, but are we really? Using the example of playing a WC3 game on Battle.net. My friends and I used to try this out, and would all connect to our battle.net accounts. I would host a game and they would all join. Now essentially Battle.Net was being used as an intermediatary for stats and initial handshaking etc. The actual TCP/IP packets were not going via the Battle.NET servers but via the person who hosted the game itself. Now TCP/IP is a routable protocol and therefore automatically able to find the shortest route for a packet to take, thus it will simply send all packets via the switch and between the clients and the server (person who hosted). So in a nutshell, for a locally hosted game, that uses Battle.NET for "authentication", the LAG should be virtually < 1 ms.
Assuming that SC2 works in a similar fashion (and I'm sure it will, as this is more a technical protocol issue, rather than a design one), we should be able to have LAN parties (as long as we can connect to the net), and have 0 lag.
I have no idea what Blizzard is thinking with no LAN support. LAN play is a staple of the gaming community and it's faster than going through the internet through battle.net.
As for the no console ports, good move. RTS games don't belong on a console.
As for the no console ports, good move. RTS games don't belong on a console.
[citation][nom]acoote[/nom]Using the example of playing a WC3 game on Battle.net. My friends and I used to try this out, and would all connect to our battle.net accounts. I would host a game and they would all join. Now essentially Battle.Net was being used as an intermediatary for stats and initial handshaking etc. The actual TCP/IP packets were not going via the Battle.NET servers but via the person who hosted the game itself. Now TCP/IP is a routable protocol and therefore automatically able to find the shortest route for a packet to take, thus it will simply send all packets via the switch and between the clients and the server (person who hosted). So in a nutshell, for a locally hosted game, that uses Battle.NET for "authentication", the LAG should be virtually < 1 ms. Assuming that SC2 works in a similar fashion (and I'm sure it will, as this is more a technical protocol issue, rather than a design one), we should be able to have LAN parties (as long as we can connect to the net), and have 0 lag.[/citation]
Scratch my complaint then. In that case, it just seems like Blizzard is hungry to track the stats of ALL games then.
Scratch my complaint then. In that case, it just seems like Blizzard is hungry to track the stats of ALL games then.
Tracking yes, but also wanting to be able to implement the new features of Battle.NET into the multiplayer too. Although I would think the main motivation here is definitely to try and reduce the effects of piracy. I hate being essentially tethered to an internet connection in order to get the full gaming experience... but I had my tantrum when STEAM was launched with HL2. I hated being "forced" to always have an internet connection available to play, even though I was probably connected to the NET about 99% of the time. I just had to get used to the fact that the internet is becoming so intertwined in our computing and gaming experience, that the line between PC and internet is starting to blur, as we see with Cloud computing and OnLIVE becoming more of a reality.
So if this is Blizzards attempt at trying to reduce piracy then I'm fairly happy with it. Definitely less intrusive than the DRM rubbish and activation limits frustrations that have been prevalent in EA and Ubi's games....
Here at Malaysia and most Asia pacific countries people game in a cyber cafe's LAN for a reason. Our monopolizing isp, for example TMnet in Malaysia sucks. Without support for LAN it'll be like purchasing a single play game for most people here. It'll even drive people more towards hacked versions that manage to enable LAN mode.
Um ok ... Starcraft 2 being the most anticipated game for soo long now. First it was the delay because of the extrended missions, fair enough. Then Split into 3 parts released roughly a year from each other, hmm ok that bugged me and alot of my starcraft fan friends. And now you say there will be no LAN support ???? WTF!!! seriously, Blizzard you will loose a lot of customers and fans... at this point i might rethink my thoughts of you being the most awesome game designers. Starcraft 1 was EPIC and won so many awards, this WILL kill the starcraft legend if you release it without LAN.
chainreaction
Distinguished
- May 13, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
I have been waiting for this game for 8 YEARS!!! 8 god DAMN YEARS!!!. And now the very point I have been waiting for this game is removed. I only played SC1 in LAN games. It was very fun.
I have gone from waiting for SC2 to now I am definately not going to buy it. And I encourage all my friends not to buy it.
I even had $3000 put away for a kick ass gaming PC when the game came out. No need to bother now. F U BLIZZARD. You have lost my dollar for good.
This is like a big kick in the guts to me... Waiting for so long. Just to be spat on by blizzard.
I have gone from waiting for SC2 to now I am definately not going to buy it. And I encourage all my friends not to buy it.
I even had $3000 put away for a kick ass gaming PC when the game came out. No need to bother now. F U BLIZZARD. You have lost my dollar for good.
This is like a big kick in the guts to me... Waiting for so long. Just to be spat on by blizzard.
chainreaction
Distinguished
- May 13, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
I call Activision to have the person who made the no LAN decision to be fired. Seriously this descision is going to lose bucket loads of money for Blizzard.
I can't even play SC2 accross the net lan gaming. Bnet doesn't let multiple computers on to bnet with the same IP... but thats besides the point....
DEFINATE BOYCOTT. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME!! Or any other blizzard game.
I can't even play SC2 accross the net lan gaming. Bnet doesn't let multiple computers on to bnet with the same IP... but thats besides the point....
DEFINATE BOYCOTT. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME!! Or any other blizzard game.
chainreaction
Distinguished
- May 13, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
Man i've been playing blizzard games since Warcraft 1. Played all of there games purchased them legalily... ALL for LAN gaming (warcraft II and onwards)... apart from Wow but never really got into that.
stradric
Distinguished
- Mar 16, 2009
- 82
- 0
- 18,630
People are such whiny bitches on this issue, I swear. Not having LAN support 10 years ago when internet connections were scarce was an issue. If you don't have an internet connection now, then you need to get out of your cave and get one. If you are hosting LAN parties and plugging into a router, well, plug the router into the internet and there's your connection to battle.net. What's the big deal? You will still get the benefit of the LAN, but you just have to authenticate your legit copy with battle.net where your stats will be logged on your account. Sounds awesome to me.
And this bitchiness about the game being broken up into 3 chapters? Freakin whiners, all of you. Each game will be a full length campaign. And it will be awesome. If you got all 3 campaigns in one game, they'd each be 1/3 the size that they will as a complete game. And why shouldn't Blizzard make a ton of money on this game? Starcraft is a great game. It's built exceptionally well with tons of polish and expert balancing. You people all want something for nothing. Me, I'm glad to pay a premium for a quality game. It's a rare thing in this gaming market.
This is reminiscent of the Diablo 3 color palette whiners. Such crybabies. I bet you're all over-privileged white kids too -- used to getting your way. Get over it.
And this bitchiness about the game being broken up into 3 chapters? Freakin whiners, all of you. Each game will be a full length campaign. And it will be awesome. If you got all 3 campaigns in one game, they'd each be 1/3 the size that they will as a complete game. And why shouldn't Blizzard make a ton of money on this game? Starcraft is a great game. It's built exceptionally well with tons of polish and expert balancing. You people all want something for nothing. Me, I'm glad to pay a premium for a quality game. It's a rare thing in this gaming market.
This is reminiscent of the Diablo 3 color palette whiners. Such crybabies. I bet you're all over-privileged white kids too -- used to getting your way. Get over it.
stradic have you played on bnet much? Actually have you played on any online gaming net (Xbox Live, PSN, etc.)?
They all share one thing: LAG. And in games where split-second movements make the difference LAG is intolerable. Heck even people with FiOS still have lag issues.
Imagine trying to play COD 4 when everyone is moving 50 feet in one go.
Starcraft may not be as fast as shooters, but tell me its not a problem when your entire force is wiped out because it lagged for a good 10 seconds which has happened.
They all share one thing: LAG. And in games where split-second movements make the difference LAG is intolerable. Heck even people with FiOS still have lag issues.
Imagine trying to play COD 4 when everyone is moving 50 feet in one go.
Starcraft may not be as fast as shooters, but tell me its not a problem when your entire force is wiped out because it lagged for a good 10 seconds which has happened.
So it looks like after its release SC1 will still outsell SC2? Reminds me of when the PS2 continued to outsell the newer PS3 haha. And about the price.....I don't seem to remember SC1 being $50 when it first came out. Blizzard IS getting greedy in their old age.
ericgunnerson
Distinguished
- May 24, 2009
- 11
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]1. The LAN thing is a legitimate complaint. For a game that was really made famous for it's popularity at LAN events, it seems that Blizzard is forgetting their roots so to speak.[/citation]
Oh they're not forgetting their roots! I think they know their roots got them some nice laurels to rest on, and it seems like they're doing exactly that.
Will I be as likely to pick this game up if I have to connect to the Internet to play with a friend in the same room as me? Helll naw. I think Bliz thinks Starcraft is such a powerhouse that it won't matter if they take away nice features. I hope they're wrong. We'll see though.
Oh they're not forgetting their roots! I think they know their roots got them some nice laurels to rest on, and it seems like they're doing exactly that.
Will I be as likely to pick this game up if I have to connect to the Internet to play with a friend in the same room as me? Helll naw. I think Bliz thinks Starcraft is such a powerhouse that it won't matter if they take away nice features. I hope they're wrong. We'll see though.
hillarymakesmecry
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2009
- 448
- 0
- 18,780
Hopefully someone more talented than me can pirate/crack the game and make it LAN capable.
I'm planning on buying the game, but no lan support is ridiculous. Not everyone wants to play online. Especially on my craptacular $20 a month internet.
I'm planning on buying the game, but no lan support is ridiculous. Not everyone wants to play online. Especially on my craptacular $20 a month internet.
eccentric909
Distinguished
- Oct 4, 2006
- 388
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]evolve60[/nom]It's been the most overhyped game of the last 2 decades, Starcraft is so old that it's a surprise that anyone still remembers it, and anyone that does haven't been out of their houses or upgraded their computer to anything better to experience any of the new games[/citation]
The game is still huge in Korea. They still hold giant tournaments, with professional teams and players, vying for sponsorships and cash prizes, etc.
The game is still huge in Korea. They still hold giant tournaments, with professional teams and players, vying for sponsorships and cash prizes, etc.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Would I be better off upgrading my current PC or should I get a whole new PC?
- Started by CattyCatt
- Replies: 5
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Question Graphics card upgrade planned; is there anything I'm missing?- Latest: BelactheLion
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram