"It's called LAN!"

[FrozenArbiter]

EDIT: If I missed something when replying to your last post, I'm sorry, I'm really sleepy. I'll re-read it tomorrow.

I do see value in an improved battle.net, and I even suggested LAN be implemented via Battle.net, as long as you have a connection (and if you don't have a connection you can play LAN but get no achievments etc).

The reason why people say "Well, I don't play on Battle.net, I play on ICCUP/Hamachi/Garena.." is:

- Latency. They are fixing this.
- The total lack of a ladder (Starcraft). Again, this will be remedied for Starcraft 2. Look at Wc3; they never had private servers for that game, because the ladder was actually supported. Only when tools that reduced the built in delay of the game were produced did people start looking for alternatives to battle.net.

The example of the WoW channel is, I think, more relevant here than when you first used it in the channels thread, but I think the same thing - essentially - could be achieved by what I suggested above: allowing LAN play but still having you connect to Battle.net.

If there's a reason for why this wouldn't work, let me know, I'm not seeing one at the moment. It really would be no different from a password protected game... it would just be on LAN.

You'd still show up on peoples friend lists, you'd still be able to whisper them and them you.

Everyone with an internet connection would automatically be part of the "Online Experience", so the only people this would actually affect, are the people without a choice...
Nothing would really change for the ones who CAN connect.

I know people are scared of changes, I know I myself initially overreacted to things like MBS and unlimited unit selection - things which I now look back at and shake my head. But this is different - the situation is just so much simpler:
Some people will be completely unable to play the game with others. Period.

It won't affect me personally, at all really, but the above solution would help all the people who simply wouldn't be able to play the game otherwise, at no expense on my part and in no way compromising Blizzard's vision.

Oh and about the sales - maybe I'm crazy but I wouldn't expect the game to sell that much less well even if it is an issue to people in SA or similiar areas. It will just limit their experience, but I don't know if it would limit it to the point where it'd show up in statistics.

[Gifted]

EDIT: If I missed something when replying to your last post, I'm sorry, I'm really sleepy. I'll re-read it tomorrow.

I think you're good

The reason why people say "Well, I don't play on Battle.net, I play on ICCUP/Hamachi/Garena.." is:

- Latency. They are fixing this.
- The total lack of a ladder (Starcraft). Again, this will be remedied for Starcraft 2. Look at Wc3; they never had private servers for that game, because the ladder was actually supported. Only when tools that reduced the built in delay of the game were produced did people start looking for alternatives to battle.net.

I'll agree with these points, I'm sure others are out there but trivial points.

The example of the WoW channel is, I think, more relevant here than when you first used it in the channels thread, but I think the same thing - essentially - could be achieved by what I suggested above: allowing LAN play but still having you connect to Battle.net.

If there's a reason for why this wouldn't work, let me know, I'm not seeing one at the moment. It really would be no different from a password protected game... it would just be on LAN.

I think you've admitted this in previous threads, that LAN speed games while connected to the internet are being tested and intended in the final product if possible.

I think the only thing you and I are TRULY curious about on this point is if it's an initial check or a check throughout the game. (In other words, how disconnects affect it.)

I know people are scared of changes, I know I myself initially overreacted to things like MBS and unlimited unit selection - things which I now look back at and shake my head. But this is different - the situation is just so much simpler: Some people will be completely unable to play the game with others. Period.

I'll never disagree with this point either. As I said before, I am not without compassion, this will suck for many people. But I hope over time it will spread around as much as Starcraft has over it's lifespan.

It won't affect me personally, at all really, but the above solution would help all the people who simply wouldn't be able to play the game otherwise, at no expense on my part and in no way compromising Blizzard's vision.

Unfortunately, I think it would compromise a portion of Blizzard's vision, but I've explained my side on that one. I think it'll be safe to say we understand each others sides and merely have different opinions on this. Agreed?

Oh and about the sales - maybe I'm crazy but I wouldn't expect the game to sell that much less well even if it is an issue to people in SA or similiar areas. It will just limit their experience, but I don't know if it would limit it to the point where it'd show up in statistics.

Well, I'll say this, in multiple interviews at Blizzcon, the attitude has changed to "We're not worried right now, we will keep a very close watch on it after ship" which shows either more public compassion (PR completely) or a legit reason to consider how it will affect countries or regions with lacking internet. If they see a major issue with that or other facets such as tournaments.. I'm sure they'll look into more direct actions on the subject.

The problem is, at this point, all the scenarios are theoretical and part of a minority of the theory. Time will tell on this one. It's not always about the bottom dollar, but rather how the dollar fits into the big picture.

[Noise]

I think you've admitted this in previous threads, that LAN speed games while connected to the internet are being tested and intended in the final product if possible.

I think the only thing you and I are TRULY curious about on this point is if it's an initial check or a check throughout the game. (In other words, how disconnects affect it.)

Sorry to just jump in with a minor post, but there no reason why it couldn't matchmake the game to be played over LAN and also have a separate connection to battle.net updating them on disconnects. What I mean is that connection to battle.net shouldn't increase latency in the game, much like downloading a file while playing on LAN.

[Gifted]

Sorry to just jump in with a minor post, but there no reason why it couldn't matchmake the game to be played over LAN and also have a separate connection to battle.net updating them on disconnects. What I mean is that connection to battle.net shouldn't increase latency in the game, much like downloading a file while playing on LAN.

While I agree that there is no reason one way or another, the only entity who can "confirm" this is Blizzard, anyone else is merely speculation.

That was my only idea on it, though your point is still very valid.

[Ghost_828]

- Latency. They are fixing this.

The problem here is that Blizzard can 'fix' latency as much as they please, but if you have a shitty connection, you're going to have issues.

Quickly refering to our symbol of the less-privilaged, South Africa, you'll note that a 'standard' ADSL line speed down there is 384Kbps. Even this pathetic speed is racketeeringly expensive. But, this is irrelevant in the scope of things.

I believe a large amount of people are upset because Blizzard is telling them that they will be better off without LAN. These people then fervently disagree, but Blizzard is sticking to its guns, creating the situation we find ourselves in now.

[FrozenArbiter]

I should clarify, when I say they are fixing the latency issues, I mean they are removing the ridiculously high built in latency of Warcraft 3 and Starcraft.
Both games have an artificial latency, built in at a time when 56k was the norm.

I still do not see how having LAN via Bnet (in the game browser it could just be an extra tab) for everyone with an internet connection and LAN without Bnet for everyone without one (it would only be available to you, if you didn't have an active internet connection) would compromise Blizzard's vision.

That is, precisely the same solution as they have for Single Player, with the added stipulation that you can't actually choose to play outside of Bnet unless you genuinely do not have an internet connection.

[n00bonicPlague]

Though it breaks my heart, it seems that I don't have much of a choice but to accept having an internet connection to play with LAN-latency. But here's the big question: Will we have to connect once just before the game in order to let bnet2 check it or will we have to maintain a constant connection for the entire game?

In other words, if the LAN network I am playing on disconnects from the rest of the world, will the game I am playing suddenly and abruptly end?

[Gifted]

Frozen, I think that the statement you just made completely supports my theory that "people like choice".

Scenario 1: Let's say you and 4 friends have a LAN party, you create a "b.net" party and join a game between you all. It starts the game after verifying that you have b.net access but connects it VIA the lan.

Scenario 2: Let's say you and 4 friends have a LAN party, you create a LAN game in b.net and all of you join it. It starts the game after verifying that you have b.net access and you play via "LAN".

Now, essentially both scenarios create the exact same gameplay. Now while some might not find this "important" but by giving you "choice" they had to incorporate a whole new set of code (which though made, doesn't mean it's integrated) and also it gives people the feeling that "I'm not on b.net, I'm on LAN" which will for some individuals start to split the vision in their mind. "What are you talking about? I'm not part of b.net, I only play LAN".

It may sound stupid to some people, but never underestimate the potential of the masses, I know we can ALL agree on that.

The ultimate thing about both scenarios is that one goes along with the "b.net vision" by utilizing code they already have (B.net Party) and the other involves taking a completely separate set of code and putting it with ship. This code later may have differences enough to cause security issues or a need to patch.

Now, if you look at it as centralizing the b.net party scenario, if there's a problem with b.net party, it's the same code either way, making it easier to isolate issues.

Now I'm hitting it from a developer standpoint, because the example finally got to that point This is what Blizzard means about putting in "extra code". It's not only about "shipment" it's about maintaining the code from this day forward for years to come for not only THIS game but every game after this.

[Gifted]

Though it breaks my heart, it seems that I don't have much of a choice but to accept having an internet connection to play with LAN-latency. But here's the big question: Will we have to connect once just before the game in order to let bnet2 check it or will we have to maintain a constant connection for the entire game?

In other words, if the LAN network I am playing on disconnects from the rest of the world, will the game I am playing suddenly and abruptly end?

Yeah Nooby... In one of my walls of text (which I don't blame you for not reading) that's the one massive point I'm curious on. Ultimately we won't know until Blizzard releases the info.

/agree

[FrozenArbiter]

Ok so say they handle LAN for people with internet connections as in your 1st example, is there any reason to not allow people without an internet connection to play on LAN - however rudimentary it is?

Basically that would shut down ALL non-desired LAN use, because programs like Hamachi or Garena would not work at all, and you'd have to play via Battle.net unless you wanted to play with someone right next to you AND who didn't have an internet connection.

This way there is no choice and only those who physically can't connect would go with the LAN option.