any1 hear about this? garena removed lan from a bunch of countries, but apparently some countries can still use it. 
alternatives to garena that work similarly
They expect to have full access to a game they did not buy? Do you think that is fair?
I'll have to agree. I don't know if it's due to bots leeching, but wc3 melee has like 2 seconds delay, as if the engine's pathing wasn't already hard to deal with.
That sounds interesting. How do you know how this is done? Does it have to do with the concept of virtual LAN?
Well it depends on the law and if your country recognizes intellectual property and copyright. Under European and United States of America laws it is illegal and the owner could be fined/sued several million in damages.
Until someone posts proof of this I have to write it off as marketing scam. The fact is that BattleNet does not process game packets. All hosting is done peer to peer. The only difference between BattleNet hosting and LAN hosting is that a smaller unit for latency is used (BattleNet defaults to 150ms or something). However Host Robots can change this anyway.
Their servers have nothing to do with your peer to peer traffic. Their servers only send you social updates like friend messages and status.
Why was the lag gone? Seeing how both use IP packets through the internet. The VPN at best should be performing peer to peer communication which is what BattleNet hosting does anyway.
Well seeing how the guy was literally on the other side of the earth 6-8 years ago... It was a LoaP or something silly anyway so unplayable? no.
For a RTS game 170-200 is fine. You do not have to wait for confirmation before issuing another order you know. If you did your own visual processing response would dominate.
There is no such thing as magic.
I have said it many times already and will keep saying it. When you host, you are the server. BattleNet has nothing to do with anyone hosting, it only acts as a listing server (custom game list) and for social. When a player joins a game from BattleNet, he is given the host's IP address and socket and then proceeds to connect directly with the host. This is why you cannot host behind a NAT unless you specifically declare a port mapping to the local IP address of the host machine as the NAT will discard the incoming packets as it has no idea where to route them. When in game the only communication relating to the game (not the social friends stuff) is between the players and the host via peer to peer. If there is bad latency that is because between you and the host there is a bad latency connection.
I do not own StarCraft 1.
If it is anything like WC3 this is because LAN defaults to a much smaller synchronization period. Since LANs are local they generally do not suffer >100ms delay due to having to cross large distances around Earth. BattleNet defaults to a much larger delay to cope with this delay.
You will have to speak to Doctor Who then, since in real life we have yet to develop a Tardis, the machine required to make internet play between Europe and the United States of America have a latency less than 100ms.
Neither can WC3 micro that fast. It only calculates move orders one unit at a time per player per frame. Again I also emphasized this as a worst case (usually it was the 100-150 range).
So the games magically appear? I am pretty sure you host. The reason people can join is because the VPN has its own IP address space which is not behind a NAT and as such the required traffic can resolve the target host.
I have no idea why this would prevent you from hosting. It only means that STUN servers cannot resolve a mapped port for you (which services like Steam use?).
These services are not meant for gamming. The reliability and latency generally is too poor.
You won't explain this to me? =(Dr Super Good said:
Who is the host in Warcraft III melee games?Dr Super Good said:
No offense but did you ever play the game?
Probably BattleNet, does not mater in this context though (since you only play it for ranking which is clearly not something LAN supports) and will likely not suffer the latency problems described anyway.
Not much too explain. You can tunnel IP packets from one network inside IP packets of another network to deliver them somewhere. To this tunnelled network it would appear as a simple link hop for the packet when in reality it may have gone though any number of real internet hops. Primarily intended for use in large companies with physically separate premises with no physical links between them (no private WAN). Using this they can keep a consistent address structure across all systems as if they were on a single LAN. Could also be implemented by an Ethernet tunnel (you embed local Ethernet frames inside an IP packet with the only real difference being the use of Switching instead of Routing.
You clearly must have not much or you would be well aware of the problems with moving armies in WC3. Did you ever wonder why some units start moving before others in melee if you order 2 full groups to move almost at the same time? Try moving 100 units in a crowded situation (constant unit on unit collisions) and you will see that WC3 has considerable problems.
How good that Blizzard still sells the game both digitally and physically then. Cheap, as well.
