[inFeZa]

Stated in this interview: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/459...der_-3_12_2012

We have a number of updates and changes coming SoonTM to StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and we wanted to share some of them with you.

The upcoming 1.5 patch will be our most feature-laden patch to date. This patch represents the first steps towards the release of our first expansion for StarCraft II, Heart of the Swarm, and will include numerous upgrades and fixes throughout the game. One of the most significant additions will be the all new Arcade feature which includes improved custom game visibility, ratings, reviews, game instructions, screenshot support, and more. Patch 1.5 will also include significant improvements throughout the overall user interface, streaming support, antialiasing, editor and modding upgrades, new art tools, and more. We’ll go into further details about these features in future developer updates. In this update, I would like to provide some insight into the thinking and motivation behind a few of the upcoming changes.

Sounds like some good changes are coming

First, we’ll allow players to resize their chat windows to fill a larger portion of the screen. We’ll also remember the chat channel you were in as well as the position of that chat channel on your screen for when you next return to the game. This will allow players who want to recreate something that feels a lot more like Warcraft III or the original StarCraft to build their own interface that looks a lot like those older games.

This sounds mediocre to me, still not good enough as WC3 and SC1 Chat.

We’re also working on a feature that will help players connect with other players and games that are near their location (connecting through the same IP). We believe this will primarily be used by people in internet gaming rooms, offices, dorm rooms, and local tournaments where you just want to find the guy sitting in the desk next to you. Although this may not be ready in time for the release of patch 1.5, we do intend to have this available by the time Heart of the Swarm ships.

I'm curious to see what this means, if it means LAN Latency or just hey, this guy is here - click on this button to join a party with him or something lame. Hope this is what we've all been waiting for?

[breadfan]

I am excited. Here's hoping the UI changes are chat-related

[Asrathiel]

Sounds shiny... and lol @ Coming SoonTM

Quick Comments

	PiG:	haha "within the next decade"
	MooZfY:

[Cute]

All of these sound really nice. Until you read into them further haha. I guess it's a start though

[rezyn8]

Still missing clan support

Quick Comments

	PiG:	yep! Such a massive hole in the system >.<
	Dox:	it's coming in hots
	TAScarecrow:
	MooZfY:
	asdfSchnitzel:
	Satu:

[Daboo]

That does seem like lan latency, and that is quite awesome. It's kinda cool that we're "progressing" towards a brood war like UI, one day we will get there

I wonder if they'll take the stream features from LoL, Might be worth it, because a lot of the casual players will return for heart of the swarm, and this will help get some of them into e-sports.

[Dox]

Originally Posted by SQL.inFeZa

I'm curious to see what this means, if it means LAN Latency or just hey, this guy is here - click on this button to join a party with him or something lame. Hope this is what we've all been waiting for?

It means that if you're on a local area network with another player, your game will not feed through battle.net. This means that if battle.net goes down, you only lose the ability to earn achievements, and you will have significantly lower ping.

Quick Comments

inFeZa:

If this is true it's amazing - Then i can stop yelling out BLIZZ LAN!!!~!~!~!~

[NvPinder]

Pretty much all great announcements which are pretty much the 3 most complained about things in the community (custom map list is currently bad, no lan/lan latency, not good enough social experience).

Blizzard pretty much hit the nail on the head with what they've posted here, its just a matter of them delivering now.

And for those who don't realize just how huge this paragraph is:

We’re also working on a feature that will help players connect with other players and games that are near their location (connecting through the same IP). We believe this will primarily be used by people in internet gaming rooms, offices, dorm rooms, and local tournaments where you just want to find the guy sitting in the desk next to you. Although this may not be ready in time for the release of patch 1.5, we do intend to have this available by the time Heart of the Swarm ships.

It means Australians will finally get to play the game without >150ms....

Quick Comments

ToRSpartaz:

whoally dam no 440 PING for Spartaz? :D

[Peleus]

Source dox?

I take it purely as the ability to find games with local people - it will still be relayed through b.net, lag and reliability included. Essentially what your describing is full blown LAN support which would also require a completely different architecture in SC2.

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Source dox?

I take it purely as the ability to find games with local people - it will still be relayed through b.net, lag and reliability included. Essentially what your describing is full blown LAN support which would also require a completely different architecture in SC2.

I don't see the point to this. If this was what they were doing, why bother? It doesn't actually accomplish anything. I don't think it needs to be fully redesigned architecture. You still have to log in to battle.net, it's just the custom game is hosted locally rather than on b.net

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by breadfan

I don't see the point to this. If this was what they were doing, why bother? It doesn't actually accomplish anything. I don't think it needs to be fully redesigned architecture. You still have to log in to battle.net, it's just the custom game is hosted locally rather than on b.net

Not seeing a point to it doesn't mean blizzard won't do it as others have said its more for 'friend finding' reasons than stability or anything else.

With regards to the custom game hosted locally that IS the full redesign of the architecture aka full blown LAN.

We will not get LAN for SC2 (piracy being one of the main factors).

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Not seeing a point to it doesn't mean blizzard won't do it as others have said its more for 'friend finding' reasons than stability or anything else.

With regards to the custom game hosted locally that IS the full redesign of the architecture aka full blown LAN.

We will not get LAN for SC2 (piracy being one of the main factors).

That issue is solved by having them log into battle.net so they're verified by the server then bypassing the server to play the game. The way it -sounds- like this works is that if they can detect you are on the same ISP (as they said) they can route packets properly to give you (pretty close to) lan ping. This still doesn't help those of us on ISPs such as Optus though, unless we are playing someone else on the same ISP (or it's more than just ISP it's detecting and managing to avoid going all the way to the server).

And because the finding game stuff is still done exactly the same way as normal (including custom games where you add people with the battle.net ids) there is no additional piracy risk at all.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

That issue is solved by having them log into battle.net so they're verified by the server then bypassing the server to play the game. The way it -sounds- like this works is that if they can detect you are on the same ISP (as they said) they can route packets properly to give you (pretty close to) lan ping. This still doesn't help those of us on ISPs such as Optus though, unless we are playing someone else on the same ISP (or it's more than just ISP it's detecting and managing to avoid going all the way to the server).

And because the finding game stuff is still done exactly the same way as normal (including custom games where you add people with the battle.net ids) there is no additional piracy risk at all.

Same IP was announced, not same ISP. Huge difference.

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Not seeing a point to it doesn't mean blizzard won't do it as others have said its more for 'friend finding' reasons than stability or anything else.

With regards to the custom game hosted locally that IS the full redesign of the architecture aka full blown LAN.

We will not get LAN for SC2 (piracy being one of the main factors).

Piracy isn't an issue with what I said? If it just allows a locally hosted p2p connection, but you still need to log into b.net to do so, problem solved. That's not a full redesign of architecture, I'm sorry.

Blizzard are a business, and I would stake my left nut on the fact that they would not take what is probably the number 1 community requested feature, and basically shit all over it and put in a "Players on your LAN" chat channel - if it even came up in a design meeting here's how it would go

"How do you think it will be received by the community?"
"..."
"So let's the arcade?"

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by breadfan

Piracy isn't an issue with what I said? If it just allows a locally hosted p2p connection, but you still need to log into b.net to do so, problem solved. That's not a full redesign of architecture, I'm sorry.

Blizzard are a business, and I would stake my left nut on the fact that they would not take what is probably the number 1 community requested feature, and basically shit all over it and put in a "Players on your LAN" chat channel - if it even came up in a design meeting here's how it would go

"How do you think it will be received by the community?"
"..."
"So let's the arcade?"

Piracy is an issue, because you would only need to spoof the initial b.net authentication then you could play offline with full functionality instead of having to constantly remain authenticated. It makes it a huge amount easier for pirates, so it is an issue.

Secondly having p2p hosting is a huge redesign of their architecture, it's going from a centralized system to a distributed system, I can't see how that's even open to debate respectfully. It's like a website download as opposed to bit torrent.

Blizzard have constantly said that the number 1 feature request by the community (LAN) will not be implemented.

Quick Comments

Dox:

there is already a lan hack out there, has been for ages

[Cute]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Source dox?

I take it purely as the ability to find games with local people - it will still be relayed through b.net, lag and reliability included. Essentially what your describing is full blown LAN support which would also require a completely different architecture in SC2.

That's how I interpreted this too. Just another way to connect with friends on battlenet (like the facebook finder lol). If it actually does allow players to bypass bnet, then that's awesome.

[TCPLemminks]

Yay so something like LAN is coming^^.

Still want Clan support and maybe saving chat?

[d00fus]

Still no news about clan support, tags and a channel would be nice.

Quick Comments

Dox:

coming in hots

[wTlzq]

They never even mention anything about clan support...

Quick Comments

Dox:

coming in hots (does anyone read these rep comments before posting?)

[Rageboredguy]

If this new feature is not LAN support (or very similar) and the only thing that Blizzard listen to is how much money they are going to lose to piracy. Then why doesn't the Starcraft community rally together and tell Blizzard that we will not buy Heart of the Swarm unless it has LAN support included.

Surely the percentage of the player-base of Starcraft that will pirate the if there was LAN support is small compared to the percentage of the community that would refuse to purchase.

I have been thinking about this for a while and it would be easy if you got some big people in the community like casters behind this. After all, they want it too, i'm sure they are just as sick of disconnections in every tournament as us, and they can influence their fan-base.

Is this unrealistic? Am i missing something? Or should we be using Heart of the Swarm as an oppertunity?

Quick Comments

	Dox:	that's a ridiculous suggestion, put the pitchfork away
	mGGSouth:	I like this idea :)

[ToRSpartaz]

Just a thought, this is just a preview yes? Like they not have revealed full information? I really am keen for Clan Support right now -.-

Quick Comments

Dox:

coming in hots

[Peleus]

Uhh just re-read what you said breadfan. A player does not host a game under the current bnet system, bnets dedicated servers do. So you're changing from two clients connecting to bnets servers to a host / client arrangement. Happy to be corrected otherwise with a source?

[MazEi]

Uhm, am I the only one excited about that antialiasing part?

[Arma]

Originally Posted by mazei

Uhm, am I the only one excited about that antialiasing part?

Nope, I am too . Though I'd prefer not playing with too high of anti-aliasing settings as it is pretty performance intensive. But if you have a beast system, should look nice!

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Uhh just re-read what you said breadfan. A player does not host a game under the current bnet system, bnets dedicated servers do. So you're changing from two clients connecting to bnets servers to a host / client arrangement. Happy to be corrected otherwise with a source?

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

[Dox]

Originally Posted by breadfan

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

Players most certainly do not host games - this was one of the biggest infrastructure changes from traditional (ie. Brood War, WarCraft 3) Battle.net and SC2.

Battle.net hosts all games, whether it be AutoMM or Private.

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by Dox

Players most certainly do not host games - this was one of the biggest infrastructure changes from traditional (ie. Brood War, WarCraft 3) Battle.net and SC2.

Battle.net hosts all games, whether it be AutoMM or Private.

Any idea where I can read about this? I'm having a hard time on google, it'd be pretty interesting to find

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by breadfan

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

No documentation that I can find offhand, just remember it being mentioned in interviews in the past along with discussions on the topic of LAN etc. This is also why the maps are distributed centrally instead of player to player as it was in BW. Also this is why any can be labelled / promoted to host in the lobby, it has nothing to do with any hosting on the local machine, merely who has the power of invitation and pressing the start button.

Either way as I was saying this massive move to centralisation offers great benefits over the P2P model, however it makes it difficult and requires big changes if suddenly you want to connect players directly. This is why I was saying it's a huge architecture change. Not that it can't be done at all, but it's not as simple as cut and pasting some code.

[Dox]

FYI when you host a multiplayer game on PSN (Playstation Network) via PS3 or PSP, the matchmaking works similarly to SC2. (2 clients connected to a server) However, if a local connection (or wifi) can be established (ie. unified gateway) between the two clients, the game data will be transmitted locally, whilst remaining connected to PSN for authentication.

People seem to have glazed right over the UI improvements, stream support and art tools being released to the public. This is a very big deal.

[TABjornbrandr]

Originally Posted by Dox

People seem to have glazed right over the UI improvements, stream support and art tools being released to the public. This is a very big deal.

I agree, I am very interested in what this stream support idea is. It could be anything, though. Something as minor as embedded tournaments or as large as rewritten code to optimise stream encryption or some shit. Guess it depends how you interpret the statement.

[asdfSchnitzel]

The REAL question is: How many rep comments will Dox have to put saying "Coming in HOTS" in the next 24 hours?

[foxmeep]

New feature is DEFINITELY not LAN latency, don't get your hopes up.

[SLCN.Kez]

Say it with me people. REPLAYS WITH FRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*edit*
That being said sick they are trying to find ways to adhere to what the community is asking for, albeit slightly late

Quick Comments

	Zealo:
	Rageboredguy:
	Sturok:	REPLAYS WITH FRIEND!!

[iM yang]

Originally Posted by kez

say it with me people. Replays with friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!

replays with friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quick Comments

SLCN.Kez:

ahahah <3

[TABjornbrandr]

Originally Posted by kez

Say it with me people. REPLAYS WITH FRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quick Comments

	RicocheT:	That pic is me. Can I be your friend?
	iM yang:	hahahaha
	TADivinity:	lol
	SLCN.Kez:	LOL

[ToRDarKnoob]

im still waiting for clan support

[iM yang]

BAHAHAHAHA oh my god bjorn SO GOOD

[TADivinity]

Its interesting to note that TFT was far better than ROC (Warcraft 3 expansion versus vanilla for all those who -seriously- missed out).
Im excited to see this game post-Legacy of the Void. I expect that we will look back on Wings of Liberty and just say "Oh geez, I cant believe we dealt with all that shit / lack of shit" (Good customs included in this thought! :P)

Quick Comments

Maynarde:

I agree! Good comparison

[SLCN.Kez]

Or it could be like WoW where we all reminisce about vanilla and repeatedly quit/take the game back up due to addicted. I hope its your idea tho ahah

[AxSGRiM]

When the **** is blizzard going to implement saving games in specific points to prevent all these regames that have been controversialzz

[inFeZa]

Originally Posted by nRvGRiM

When the **** is blizzard going to implement saving games in specific points to prevent all these regames that have been controversialzz

"The technology just isn't there yet"

[TCPLemminks]

Dox: coming in hots (does anyone read these rep comments before posting?)

Not if it means that we get up reps from dox ^^.......where's clan support?