[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 :)

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by breadfan

It's currently P2Blizzard2P (one of the peers hosts, just all connections are trafficked through Blizz servers). What about allowing players to play against players on the same subnet to just skip the Blizzard part of that is a huge redesign?

The part where the players are connected directly instead of via battle.net servers??

If you wouldn't call this a major architecture change, what would you classify as a major change?

[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

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

The part where the players are connected directly instead of via battle.net servers??

If you wouldn't call this a major architecture change, what would you classify as a major change?

It's a few lines of code?

if you connect in LAN mode, then resolve IP of custom match opponent and if on the same subnet, connect to host/allow connect

else (meaning ladder, custom games on a different subnet, campaign, etc) resolve ip of battle.net region server, authenticate, and connect to b.net (basically what happens now)

You just have to basically bypass one step for one type of custom match. All the rest have no change

Quick Comments

Dox:

PS3 has been using this technology for years

[Arma]

@spartaz, I agree, clan support would be quite cool :-) (even though I'm clanless). Clan support in games, whether rts, mmo or fps is always handy for communication/organizing clan events.

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?

[ToRSpartaz]

Originally Posted by Arma

@spartaz, I agree, clan support would be quite cool :-) (even though I'm clanless). Clan support in games, whether rts, mmo or fps is always handy for communication/organizing clan events.

I mean its easy to do well not easy... But it requires a lot of hard work and dedication that is for sure!

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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

[asdfSchnitzel]

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

[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.

[foxmeep]

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

[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.

[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!!

[ToRDarKnoob]

im still waiting for clan support

[iM yang]

Originally Posted by kez

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

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

Quick Comments

SLCN.Kez:

ahahah <3