Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → No LAN starcraft 2
12
No LAN starcraft 2
2009-07-04, 11:33 PM #1
well this sucks
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6212765.html

2009-07-04, 11:54 PM #2
Well that's a pretty dumb move, I can't even see why.
2009-07-05, 12:20 AM #3
well yeah i mean blizz said they will implement a lan service through b net but what if b net goes down on a friday night? bummer for geeks that planned a lan party on that friday night :(

2009-07-05, 12:27 AM #4
In before this doesn't at all decrease the amount of piracy.
2009-07-05, 7:59 AM #5
Because there's a lot of ways that people have utilized the lan services in starcraft and warcraft 3 to induce online play with pirated copies.

Not surprising honestly, and bnet's never down, so big deal.
D E A T H
2009-07-05, 8:55 AM #6
It's not like it's hard. VPN. Boom, 'lan' over the Internet.
2009-07-05, 10:16 AM #7
This will kill LAN parties.
2009-07-05, 10:22 AM #8
Oh please, like this game won't suck compared to the original.
2009-07-05, 10:33 AM #9
Originally posted by JM:
It's not like it's hard. VPN. Boom, 'lan' over the Internet.


Umm, that's backwards :psyduck:. VPN is for when you need internet play for LAN-only games, not the other way around.

2009-07-05, 10:39 AM #10
The other issue is that in Britland internet connections haven't reached the level of reliability that would be required for LAN parties, not to mention the draconian bandwidth throttling put in place by most ISPs.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2009-07-05, 10:49 AM #11
Originally posted by JM:
Oh please, like this game won't suck compared to the original.

tell it to the koreans

2009-07-05, 11:52 AM #12
Quote:
Umm, that's backwards . VPN is for when you need internet play for LAN-only games, not the other way around.

No, you use the VPN to get around battle.net. So you can play with your pirated copy. Or with spawn copies.
2009-07-05, 12:44 PM #13
If they're worried about piracy and LAN games... why can't they just make the game check your opponents CD-keys? Stupid.
2009-07-05, 12:57 PM #14
Because those keys can be generated, and the only way to verify your opponents' keys is to log online to check.
\(='_'=)/
2009-07-05, 1:26 PM #15
It's 2009. We have the internet.
"If you watch television news, you will know less about the world than if you just drink gin straight out of the bottle."
--Garrison Keillor
2009-07-05, 4:37 PM #16
Originally posted by JM:
No, you use the VPN to get around battle.net. So you can play with your pirated copy. Or with spawn copies.


I don't get how that would work. I don't see how a VPN would allow one to get around the lack of LAN support.

VPN's are for allowing remote users to be assigned LAN IP addresses, remotely.
2009-07-05, 4:48 PM #17
JM, you can't use VPN to get around battle.net because the only way to play the game is through battle.net. The whole issue is that Starcraft 2 won't have any facility for non battle.net play. This means no closed-LAN gameplay at all, and no closed gameplay over VPN either.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2009-07-05, 5:39 PM #18
I was talking about star craft 1, ****tards. That's why they took lan support out, to PREVENT that.

In direct response to
Quote:
Because there's a lot of ways that people have utilized the lan services in starcraft and warcraft 3 to induce online play with pirated copies.


Which, incidentally, is the post immediately above it.
2009-07-05, 5:54 PM #19
OK...
2009-07-05, 7:55 PM #20
Eh, they'll find a way around it, they always do.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2009-07-05, 8:49 PM #21
Even so it's doubtful that this will result in more copies of the game sold. LAN functionality is a big deal for me.
2009-07-06, 1:41 AM #22
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
This will kill LAN parties.

Not really. I took from the article (which I actually read) that you're basically gonna have to log into battle.net with your copy, and then you can do LAN play. You just can't do it without being logged into battle.net, which means everyone at the party will have to have their own copy.
Originally posted by JM:
Oh please, like this game won't suck compared to the original.

You mean like warcraft 3 sucked compared to the original or diablo 2 sucked compared to diablo? Good call chief.
Originally posted by Detty:
The other issue is that in Britland internet connections haven't reached the level of reliability that would be required for LAN parties, not to mention the draconian bandwidth throttling put in place by most ISPs.

I don't think bandwidth will be an issue.
Originally posted by Detty:
JM, you can't use VPN to get around battle.net because the only way to play the game is through battle.net. The whole issue is that Starcraft 2 won't have any facility for non battle.net play. This means no closed-LAN gameplay at all, and no closed gameplay over VPN either.

Yes you can, there's multiple ways to do it via warcraft 3. I've used them a couple times in fact, just to see if they worked, but you can. You can even use Hamachi with warcraft 3.
D E A T H
2009-07-06, 2:28 AM #23
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Not really. I took from the article (which I actually read) that you're basically gonna have to log into battle.net with your copy, and then you can do LAN play. You just can't do it without being logged into battle.net, which means everyone at the party will have to have their own copy.
They added a button to Battle.Net that lets you view the games being hosted by your own IP address. This is amazing technology we're dealing with here.

Quote:
You mean like warcraft 3 sucked compared to the original or diablo 2 sucked compared to diablo? Good call chief.
Terrible examples. Diablo 2 and (especially) Warcraft 3 made huge improvements to the base gameplay.

Starcraft 2 is going to be bad because it's already an anachronism; 'Honda Civic' 1998 gameplay with a 'type R sticker' graphics engine. I think the only reason they're selling Starcraft 2 in three parts is because they finally clued in to the fact that they're creating a game for people so boring that they've been obsessing over the same game for 11 years, and maybe it might not be that interesting to the remaining two thirds of us.
2009-07-06, 4:24 AM #24
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Not really. I took from the article (which I actually read) that you're basically gonna have to log into battle.net with your copy, and then you can do LAN play. You just can't do it without being logged into battle.net, which means everyone at the party will have to have their own copy.


And be on the internet, which screws over all the large LAN parties we have where we rent out the hall or the school gym, or if it's a smaller large group (yes I realize what I just said) then my friends shed. None of those options will be available with this.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2009-07-06, 4:38 AM #25
Actually. The Internet is everywhere now. Even the post office has wifi now.
2009-07-06, 5:50 AM #26
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Yes you can, there's multiple ways to do it via warcraft 3. I've used them a couple times in fact, just to see if they worked, but you can. You can even use Hamachi with warcraft 3.


I had really hoped misunderstandings had ended in this thread with JM correcting everyone in the only way he knows how.

We were talking about Starcraft 2, not Warcraft 3. We thought JM was talking about Starcraft 2, but he wasn't. He informed us of this fact very rudely.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2009-07-06, 7:20 AM #27
Originally posted by Jon`C:
They added a button to Battle.Net that lets you view the games being hosted by your own IP address. This is amazing technology we're dealing with here.

Terrible examples. Diablo 2 and (especially) Warcraft 3 made huge improvements to the base gameplay.

I'm glad you're so privy to the inner workings of blizzard that you know exactly how starcraft is gonna pan out. I wish I knew these things--I'm as big a blizzard fanboy as they come and I'd love to know this stuff!

Originally posted by Deadman:
And be on the internet, which screws over all the large LAN parties we have where we rent out the hall or the school gym, or if it's a smaller large group (yes I realize what I just said) then my friends shed. None of those options will be available with this.

True enough--guess you'll have to have the forethought to rent out an office building and get some internet or something. That does suck though, those LAN parties were just as fun. Of course every LAN party I've been to has been connected to the internet in some form or fashion if not only for updates/drivers to get people on the same level.

Detty--I was just saying why they took out LAN play. That's the only reason I brought up warcraft 3
D E A T H
2009-07-06, 10:26 AM #28
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
I'm glad you're so privy to the inner workings of blizzard that you know exactly how starcraft is gonna pan out. I wish I knew these things--I'm as big a blizzard fanboy as they come and I'd love to know this stuff!


We're aware.
2009-07-06, 10:27 AM #29
I didn't know they made sequels to vans.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2009-07-06, 11:12 AM #30
Originally posted by JM:
Actually. The Internet is everywhere now. Even the post office has wifi now.


That's not good enough. Often a universities the only thing you'll be able to see is one router with a 2 bar signal strength. Trying to get a game going over that would be impossible.
2009-07-06, 11:19 AM #31
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Detty--I was just saying why they took out LAN play. That's the only reason I brought up warcraft 3


Fair enough. I understand their reasoning, but I can't help but feel they're cutting off a vital (if small) segment of their demographic.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2009-07-06, 3:23 PM #32
Quote:
That's not good enough. Often a universities the only thing you'll be able to see is one router with a 2 bar signal strength. Trying to get a game going over that would be impossible.


I'm pretty sure battle.net isn't a game server but just a match making service, like xbox live. So you only have to log into battle.net over the internet, then the actual game works across the lan just fine.
2009-07-06, 3:39 PM #33
Originally posted by JM:
I'm pretty sure battle.net isn't a game server but just a match making service, like xbox live. So you only have to log into battle.net over the internet, then the actual game works across the lan just fine.


This is accurate.
2009-07-06, 4:55 PM #34
Originally posted by JM:
I'm pretty sure battle.net isn't a game server but just a match making service, like xbox live. So you only have to log into battle.net over the internet, then the actual game works across the lan just fine.


Where did you get this information? I know that a lot of people requested this, but I haven't seen any indication that this will be implemented.
2009-07-06, 5:31 PM #35
Because it's INCREDIBLY STUPID to route all the game traffic through their servers?

If you all wifi onto that 2-bar router, you're ****ed. Instead, setup one machine as a gateway, and plug a router into it. You all plug into that router, and access the internet through the gateway. Then, when you start actually playing, your local router will be doing all the work, no wifi involved.
2009-07-06, 6:38 PM #36
You know, all they all really doing is giving hackers/crackers/the scene a challenge.
2009-07-06, 7:11 PM #37
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Where did you get this information? I know that a lot of people requested this, but I haven't seen any indication that this will be implemented.


Almost no RTS has "Game servers". It's much more sensible to do it client-side hosting. It's not like an RTS is a severely latency-dependent game.

Also, even if it uses Battle.net doesn't mean that LAN games can't occur. It just means you'll need the internet to initiate them. It could easily still route said game traffic through LAN addresses instead of traveling out and back.
2009-07-06, 8:36 PM #38
As it would by the absolute necessity of the way the internet works. If a packet is going to a machine behind a router it's going to stay behind the router.
2009-07-07, 1:45 AM #39
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Almost no RTS has "Game servers". It's much more sensible to do it client-side hosting. It's not like an RTS is a severely latency-dependent game.

Also, even if it uses Battle.net doesn't mean that LAN games can't occur. It just means you'll need the internet to initiate them. It could easily still route said game traffic through LAN addresses instead of traveling out and back.

Did you just try and say RTS' aren't that latency dependent?

I call anything where the difference between a 50 and 100ms latency is an issue latency dependent.
D E A T H
2009-07-07, 5:37 AM #40
Except every RTS ever has used a lock-step system whereby lag makes everyone slow down, rather than giving someone an advantage.
12

↑ Up to the top!