Starcraft - No LAN Support!

[xp3r009]

Hey everyone,


I can't really believe this since I play LAN with brother, but now I have heard that Starcraft II will have a chance that LAN will not be included. Recently I have entered to EpicWar and I have discovered at the top that it is possible that LAN in Starcraft will not be included, just Battle.net and Single Player.


I have read it from here: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/29/lan-support-not-included-in-starcraft-ii/. Recently I have signed my petition because I can't live without it, otherwise it will bore me to death.


You can sign your petition here if you want it to be included when it releases: http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html. I know I don't!

Andy Phan (pha0001).

 

[Trillium]

even if blizz won't include lan in SCII (and Diablo II for that matter), good people will think of ways how to make lan =))

 

[The World Is Flat]

I Hope, I agree, it won'y be fun anymore without lan!

 

[Aeroblyctos]

That's really gay.

 

[Deathcom3s]

Meh, old news.

But yes, it has been confirmed that Blizzard is planning to release SC2 without LAN support. Well, not necessarily "confirmed" but in various interviews with the staff, they have hinted that it is unlikely to be included.

 

[Gilles]

Lame.

 

[Trillium]

it may be a marketing trick... right before the release they announce that they have included LAN and will raise prices two times... overjoyed fans will buy the game for double price without question =DDDD

 

[Dr Super Good]

Meh makes no difference at all.

People over rate LAN these days anyway. You can still play through your LAN, you just need everyone to own a copy of the game and to have internet axcess, which every computer should nowdays.

I beleive they are also changing their Bnet system, so you login via your blizzard account which holds your CDkeys so that you are able to use computers as terminals. Honestly nowdays there is no need for a CDkey to install the game as they are so easy to crack. Instead they will probably use a highly up to date easy install model (perhaps with online activation) folowed by attaching your CDKeys to your battlenet / blizzard account which then will checked and validated.

Doing this would up sucerity even further as the actual CDKey data would no longer be transmited everytime you log in and so not be able to be stolen as you will transfer your encrypted account and password which will then check your activation status for the game on their servers and thus be even safer from hackers.

 

[PurplePoot]

Good. Helps versus piracy and there is really no pros to it. I wholly sympathize with Blizzard on this.

 

[Zhall]

Good. Helps versus piracy and there is really no pros to it. I wholly sympathize with Blizzard on this.

Go **** yourself.

 

[PurplePoot]

Err... Okay?

Would you mind elaborating on why you support that side of the issue?

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Did you mean to say Cons? BTW I have no idea if it's a good decision or not until I see the latency of battle.net 2.0

 

[PurplePoot]

What would that have to do with playing LAN games online? Connections are direct; they don't go through Battle.net.

 

[Doron]

This is just stupid. A lot of people are going to be PO'd if LAN isn't going to be included. I do hope they are pulling our chain.

 

[PurplePoot]

What's so bad about LAN not being included? Everyone whines, no one backs it up.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

They are probably doing it to stop Garena that is their competition in war3 right now. Many switched to it cause of the delay in bnet. What's so bad for not having LAN? No LAN party/tours to avoid 'Waiting Disconnect...' laggers that is in big quantities in bnet and even tho I also like Bnet more than some newbish Garena... no Garena that is still the best alternative after BNet (coz private servers are crap, never even think about one) and if your friends play Garena.... Absolutely nothing wrong for PurplePoot again geez I wish I were so positive not seeing a single bad thing.

 

[DragoonZombie]

Doesn't matter if SC2 won't have LAN.
It gets pirated anyway, including a LAN version then.

You can still play through your LAN, you just need everyone to own a copy of the game and to have internet axcess, which every computer should nowdays.

That alone already defeats the whole purpose of LAN.

 

[xp3r009]

it may be a marketing trick... right before the release they announce that they have included LAN and will raise prices two times... overjoyed fans will buy the game for double price without question =DDDD

If they don't, they better put it at a reduced price or I'm not buying it. I can't play Single Player alone, plus Battle.net isn't really a solution for me since the internet of mine is sort of slow (and I don't want to pay bandwidth all the time when I'm near my friends; I can just use LAN and start playing through wireless).

even if blizz won't include lan in SCII (and Diablo II for that matter), good people will think of ways how to make lan =))

If they don't, I'll probably use my programming skills to try to find out a way through Sockets, can't live without it (I play DotA with my brother and its what makes Warcraft III fun for me at least).

What's so bad about LAN not being included? Everyone whines, no one backs it up.

There are a couple of reasons, and I support it for these reasons:

1. I don't have to go to Battle.net and go through there, instead I can just use my LAN and play nearby with my friends if it is close. There is no point sending it all to Battle.net if you can just use LAN nearby, all free...
2. LAN is fast (can be 100 mbps or 1.0 gbps) and you don't receive a lot of lag. You don't even need to use the bandwidth,, even though Battle.net is free I guess.
3. It is a lot of fun, and its simply easy to set-up. For those who don't have internet, LAN is one way to have fun with your friends.


Can't live without it, makes everything with your friends, easy and its rather free. I don't see why they shouldn't include it, that is why I buy products which have LAN game-play with decent ratings. Also, I would like to point out signature 38381 from the petition, this one interested me:

Signature -38381, from Hery

I play starcraft since i was in college. I really love this game. I remember at that time that I play all night at LAN parties with my friend. What a great time it was. I promise my self that i will buy SC2 when it come out and play with my friend like old times. And now SC2 doesn't support LAN anymore. I don't know what to say. I don't believe you Blizzard. You are my favourite game developer but now you just like anyone else. Only think about money. Do you think that everyone has a decent internet connection ? what about people in developing countries that want to have a good time with SC2 multiplayer experience and not having a decent internet connection ? do you ever think about that ? Damn You Blizzard.

This one has my sympathy for me, I can feel it and that was what I was thinking in my head all along when I first posted it; poverty.

 

[Deathcom3s]

They are probably doing it to stop Garena that is their competition in war3 right now. Many switched to it cause of the delay in bnet. What's so bad for not having LAN? No LAN party/tours to avoid 'Waiting Disconnect...' laggers that is in big quantities in bnet and even tho I also like Bnet more than some newbish Garena... no Garena that is still the best alternative after BNet (coz private servers are crap, never even think about one) and if your friends play Garena.... Absolutely nothing wrong for PurplePoot again geez I wish I were so positive not seeing a single bad thing.

I don't see why Garena is a bad thing, people still buy the game...

 

[Dr Super Good]

Firstly any form of internet traffic imediatly means it is not LAN, and is WAN which WC3 never supported in the first place. It however was able to emulate WAN in its LAN section via third party mods which are illegal.

Secondly battlenet delay was due to poor design. As everyone knows the ghost one hosting bots ilimenate this delay. Basically the delay is a default 250 ms to prevent stop starting lag if peoples connections are too slow or have too much ping. Generally nowdays that can be lowered to under 150 via host helping programs like ghost one. SC2 logically will have an automatic option in it so such lag is even less noticable, afterall it is over 5 years more advanced and is being designed with this in mind.

Honestly so many people are ignorant about LAN support its amazing. For the last time it will only effect you if you have no internet connection, otherwise you will just log into battlenet like normal and host a private game which all your LAN friends join and the whole game will take place in LAN with exception to status being sent to battlenet which will not add any delay at all. Logically all your LAN friends will have their own Bnet / blizzard accounts so they can log in at any terminal with their copy of SC2 so there is no worry about CDkey stupidity.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Bah, why nobody thinks about total conversions? Like Tales of Ravignon. Now there will be no way to make maps that exceed that stupid 4mb or whatever will be bnet limit.

 

[Gilles]

What's so bad about LAN not being included? Everyone whines, no one backs it up.

There's only one reason to include LAN. So that everyone doesn't have to own a copy of the game. Perhaps the pros outweigh this one con, but I'd still rather see LAN there. I know I have plenty of friends that will not buy SC2, but would probably play on LAN with a whole group.

The other thing is internet access, but that's a moot point. Everyone has internet, and if you have a network setup, the odds are you also have internet.

 

[PurplePoot]

Okay, the arguments I've seen:

Transfer time: Learn something about networking and how BNet works and then come back and realize why this is an invalid and stupid argument.

Map size limit: LAN has it too.

No noobs: Host a private game.

Everyone owning a copy of the game: Why shouldn't they? Legally you're supposed to, and hell, it isn't that much money.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Look at it from the bright side. They are still better than the movie companies as they are not region locking SC2.

 

[Deathcom3s]

I can understand while you're all upset, but in the end, you'll learn to live without LAN. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Map size limit: LAN has it too.

Not if you use custom MPQ. Try do that on bnet...

 

[Deathcom3s]

Honestly, we don't even know what the map size limit for SC2 is going to be, so i don't even see the point in bringing that up.

 

[Gilles]

Everyone owning a copy of the game: Why shouldn't they? Legally you're supposed to, and hell, it isn't that much money.

I already explained why. It stands as a valid point, but from Blizzards perspective, not one worth including it for.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Map sizes will be atleast the same as WC3 which is rhumored to be getting upped to 6 or 8 MB. I would not be suprized to see 32 - 128 MB SC2 maps or even a better custom model system to reduce the need to redownload models that are reused in different version or even different maps.

Remember that unlike WC3, this time round they are actually building modibility into the core engine.

 

[Deathcom3s]

A better custom model system to reduce the need to redownload models that are reused in different version or even different maps.

Wartide is already planning on implementing something like that.

The map size limit could vary greatly, and depends on how much strain blizzard is willing to put on the servers.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Map size does not strain the servers...
They only have it to prevent people sending illegal files like movies via maps which are like 600 MB odd.

Anyway, with an improved custom model system, the actual map files would only need to be atmost 8 MB so that size is of no problem to people. Remember that WC3 maps will be less complicated than SC2 maps so SC2 maps will be quite a bit bigger for everything.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Wartide is already planning on implementing something like that.

The map size limit could vary greatly, and depends on how much strain blizzard is willing to put on the servers.

Whats that? Again some TerranUp16's failing project?

 

[Deathcom3s]

Whats that? Again some TerranUp16's failing project?

Haha... no, it's far from failing.

 

[PurplePoot]

Not if you use custom MPQ. Try do that on bnet...

I wouldn't be surprised if they support mods in some way, shape, or form, but if they don't then ooh aah. Mods rarely (read: never) get finished anyways, and TToR was not particularly good.

The map size limit could vary greatly, and depends on how much strain blizzard is willing to put on the servers.

What do the Battle.net servers have to do with anything?

 

[Dr Super Good]

As I said it would be stupid for SC2 to use a system like WC3 for custom resources. You must remember that SC2 is a future based game so it is almost vital people hve custom resources for something medevil or traditional like a RPG. Thus I would not be supprized if they changed the way resources are handled whereby you can DL resource packs which are shaired between all custom maps.

Thus the map file includes all game data + map sepecifc art like loading screens, interfaces and minimaps (very small files generally compaired to limate). Then the map has a list of all custom models it needs to work. When you save the map you will generate a self installing compressed map archive, probably using some form of algerthicmic compresion for optimum filesize. When used it will firstly extract the map file into your map folder. Then it would check the custom resource database to see which models / textures / icons are missing and will procede to install them as well as a index inorder to link each to the maps it is used in for better performance. When hosting, what could happen then is firstly the mape file is transfered, giving you the loadingscreen and info and stuff like that. Then it starts copying across the resources one by one which the player is lacking (uses the indexes created when resources are added and stuff like that) until DL is complete. If at anytime the player is removed during DL, both the map archive and the custom resources used by only that map which were downloaded are deleted (otherwise just the reference is deleted and the resource remains for other maps).

However due to the complexity of this system, an internal or external tool would be needed called the map manager. It would have to be used to remove maps from your play database as well as it should have the option to add "extension packs" to your custom resource library which would be unused resources which would be pre added so that they would not need to be downloaded when playing on battlenet (and could be generated from a list of the top resources from a SC2 support site) and logically would also support the removal of such content. It would also have a resource optimizer, which would optimize the performance (via removing gaps in the MPQ from deleted / added resources and defragmenting the file) and remove any errors which may occur over time (eg if you deleted the map and not the resources it used or if the resources a map used have become curropt, the map will be removed).

The only step above this would be for blizzard to actually host all custom resources which would allow for them to be downloaded on demmand from them, but such a service would not be financially feasable for a free service with few adds. However if they introduce anything with less functionallity than that it would be dissapointing as people like me probably have over 800 MB of duplicated resource content stored in their WC3 map folder. Such a waste...

 

[The World Is Flat]

Look, some of us like playing lan. some people have broadband connections that have a gigabyte-cap per month so they can't afford to game online. others have awful connections. others have friends anf family that they like to lan with... others have a maximum of 1 person online at a time, so they cannot hop on B.net and play with a brother, or friend in the same house. plenty of reasons. and alot of people would not buy the game if blizzard did not add LAN on. also even if you find this unbeliveabe OVER HALF OF THE WORLDS POPULATION LIVES IN RURAL AREAS WITH LIMITID OR 0 INTERNET. Thats all i have to say. there are plenty of other reasons to add LAN.

Also, plenty of games have a feture where you cannot play on LAN if you have the same game... if blizzard was to implement this feature then that would defeat a major argument agaist adding LAN.

 

[Jughead]

Whats' LAN?

 

[PurplePoot]

Look, some of us like playing lan. some people have broadband connections that have a gigabyte-cap per month so they can't afford to game online. others have awful connections. others have friends anf family that they like to lan with... others have a maximum of 1 person online at a time, so they cannot hop on B.net and play with a brother, or friend in the same house. plenty of reasons. and alot of people would not buy the game if blizzard did not add LAN on. also even if you find this unbeliveabe OVER HALF OF THE WORLDS POPULATION LIVES IN RURAL AREAS WITH LIMITID OR 0 INTERNET. Thats all i have to say. there are plenty of other reasons to add LAN.

Also, plenty of games have a feture where you cannot play on LAN if you have the same game... if blizzard was to implement this feature then that would defeat a major argument agaist adding LAN.

I like playing LAN too. However, I often play with my brother on BNet rather than the LAN system itself, as it makes no difference (like .1 more delay due to their minimum cap, but that's nothing for casual gaming, and I wouldn't be surprised if SC2 has it at least somewhat changeable as SC did) and is more convenient if we're already logged on.

You can play LAN-style games on BNet with no extra cost, guys. Wake up.

 

[The World Is Flat]

Yes, true, but what if you have a horrible connection? or if only 1 person can use the internet at a time? then SCII will be single-player only for people like me... and others.

 

[bboy-tiger-]

Well nowdays nobody has BAD connection. Those who had bad connection, well blizz never heard about that country, sadly.

LAN won't be supported coz of 95% of people that are pirating games. I think all of you would do the same.

+
No pirate (Only SP and Sc2 is focused on MP mostly)
More money for blizzard more support for us
You need to buy only one game for full bnet

-
Someone will make LAN version probbly.. (that's + for us )
For Sp you need to buy 3 games Oo
No LAN parties for sc2


Can+t remember more but D3 also won+t have LAN supported I think and soon few games will have LAN supported and then they will start to implant LAn into games again but with some kind of new security systems.

 

[xp3r009]

Well nowdays nobody has BAD connection. Those who had bad connection, well blizz never heard about that country, sadly.

LAN won't be supported coz of 95% of people that are pirating games. I think all of you would do the same.

+
No pirate (Only SP and Sc2 is focused on MP mostly)
More money for blizzard more support for us
You need to buy only one game for full bnet

-
Someone will make LAN version probbly.. (that's + for us )
For Sp you need to buy 3 games Oo
No LAN parties for sc2


Can+t remember more but D3 also won+t have LAN supported I think and soon few games will have LAN supported and then they will start to implant LAn into games again but with some kind of new security systems.

I've do have some decent connection, but does show some bad latency for Battle.Net. Some countries are still developing, and internet isn't their solution yet; some more developed countries such as China and Australia can easily get fast internet.

Again, the reason I have posted it is because of my brother and poverty which inequality around the world still exists. Its free, and its fast and you can set it up easily; simple .

 

[PurplePoot]

Yes, true, but what if you have a horrible connection? or if only 1 person can use the internet at a time? then SCII will be single-player only for people like me... and others.

The former: If it was so bad you couldn't play locally, it wouldn't matter whether you were on BNet or LAN. If you could only access a network with one computer, again, you couldn't play on LAN with others. Additionally, why do you have such a shitty internet if you have a good gaming computer (capable of running SC2 well)?

For Sp you need to buy 3 games Oo

Not only is this unrelated to the LAN question, but it's a game and two expansions--they will introduce new content and stuff. Think TFT twice.

No LAN parties for sc2

Legally you have to have a game per seat anyways, so it doesn't make much of a difference unless you're under the law (in which case to hell with you, why should they cater to you?).

I've do have some decent connection, but does show some bad latency for Battle.Net. Some countries are still developing, and internet isn't their solution yet; some more developed countries such as China and Australia can easily get fast internet.

Again, the reason I have posted it is because of my brother and poverty which inequality around the world still exists. Its free, and its fast and you can set it up easily; simple .

And these poor people happen to have the time to play SC2, as well as decent computers?

 

[xp3r009]

The former: If it was so bad you couldn't play locally, it wouldn't matter whether you were on BNet or LAN. If you could only access a network with one computer, again, you couldn't play on LAN with others. Additionally, why do you have such a shitty internet if you have a good gaming computer (capable of running SC2 well)?

Not only is this unrelated to the LAN question, but it's a game and two expansions--they will introduce new content and stuff. Think TFT twice.

Legally you have to have a game per seat anyways, so it doesn't make much of a difference unless you're under the law (in which case to hell with you, why should they cater to you?).

And these poor people happen to have the time to play SC2, as well as decent computers?

And these poor people happen to have the time to play SC2, as well as decent computers?

Some may, some may not. I would say second-class countries would, but somehow I'm not really impressed by how companies get their way by forcefully giving money and bandwidth. I don't really have fast internet, and LAN makes it up actually. Good point there too, now I feel sympathetic again :S.


I read about a article just a few minutes ago that it causes piracy, but eventually if it doesn't really come I won't buy it overall. At the moment: 43279 Total Signatures on the petition.

 

[WhitePhoenix]

Shouldn't people with bad connections be worrying more about a computer even capable of handling sc2? I for one know that i'm going to need to buy a new computer if I want to play sc2, even with my good connection. (I suppose I can pray that i'll be able to run it on the lowest quality, like I did wc3 before I got a new computer).

 

[Mechanical Man]

The former: If it was so bad you couldn't play locally, it wouldn't matter whether you were on BNet or LAN. If you could only access a network with one computer, again, you couldn't play on LAN with others. Additionally, why do you have such a shitty internet if you have a good gaming computer (capable of running SC2 well)?

You don't need to have an internet connection to have computers in LAN, all you need is just multiple computer connected at home. And being able to afford computer has no connection to be able to afford decent internet (56k with pay-per-minute is unacceptable for online gaming). And starcraft 2 won't exist for only one year, the computer which can run it will become cheaper and affordable even by those poor people.

Also sometimes I would like to play Starcraft with hacks. Yes, illegal blah blah, but if all players agree, it doesn't matter.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I've played ladder and BNet will remain the best thing for me. If you want real competition, you'd better go there. But I also play Garena with friends, so I also see nothing wrong with it. As I said, Garena the 2nd best thing after bnet, private servers are hacked and crap.

I wonder if custom maps can be over 3.5 MB. With better quality models the map size will sure increase.

 

[Eleandor]

2 things I have to say:

1) Good internet connection or not, if you're on a LAN party with 8 people and you want to play SC2, you'll have 8 times the traffic you usually have. Whatever your connection is, even "good" connections won't be able to keep up with that rate. And I think you're quite egocentric and arrogant when you say everyone has great internet these days. Maybe dial-up is history now, but far from everyone has good internet.
2) If I'm on a LAN with my brother, I use the same game (same key). I wouldn't be able to establish 2 connections on battle.net with the same key. If my brother only plays it occasionally when we're both at home and can LAN, then it's just stupid if we'd have to buy a 2nd copy of the game just for those few moments. I would simply not buy the game at all because it's just retarded.

If there's a LAN party with - say - 8 people, you usually play a lot of games: Quake, starcraft, warcraft, counter strike, etcetera. You can't possibly expect people who don't game that regularly to own each one of those games? So you just share the same game and play on LAN. Bottom line is: people who want to pirate it will pirate it anyway, and if other people (who just want to play it on LAN every once in a while) would not be able to play on LAN with an illegal copy, they would STILL not buy the game ANYWAY.

So basically: people who play the game on a regular basis will buy the game anyway.
people who play the game on a regular basis but pirate it will pirate it regardless of whether there's LAN or not
people who don't play the game on a regular basis will not buy it anyway, but you're just disabling their ability to play it on LAN sometimes with people that do own the game.

So it's a lose-lose situation. Blizzard will lose people that want LAN and will NOT win other people because they won't buy the game anyway, and the people lose because they don't have LAN support.

 

[PurplePoot]

You don't need to have an internet connection to have computers in LAN, all you need is just multiple computer connected at home.

Connect them to a router then. If you have the network cables, you have the power.

And being able to afford computer has no connection to be able to afford decent internet (56k with pay-per-minute is unacceptable for online gaming). And starcraft 2 won't exist for only one year, the computer which can run it will become cheaper and affordable even by those poor people.

That's why you play it locally and not with random people on BNet.

1) Good internet connection or not, if you're on a LAN party with 8 people and you want to play SC2, you'll have 8 times the traffic you usually have. Whatever your connection is, even "good" connections won't be able to keep up with that rate. And I think you're quite egocentric and arrogant when you say everyone has great internet these days. Maybe dial-up is history now, but far from everyone has good internet.

Keep in mind connections to people on a LAN will be through a LAN even if you're technically on BNet, and thus your internet can easily support it.

2) If I'm on a LAN with my brother, I use the same game (same key). I wouldn't be able to establish 2 connections on battle.net with the same key. If my brother only plays it occasionally when we're both at home and can LAN, then it's just stupid if we'd have to buy a 2nd copy of the game just for those few moments. I would simply not buy the game at all because it's just retarded.

Quite frankly, I support the idea of having to buy a copy per seat.

If there's a LAN party with - say - 8 people, you usually play a lot of games: Quake, starcraft, warcraft, counter strike, etcetera. You can't possibly expect people who don't game that regularly to own each one of those games? So you just share the same game and play on LAN. Bottom line is: people who want to pirate it will pirate it anyway, and if other people (who just want to play it on LAN every once in a while) would not be able to play on LAN with an illegal copy, they would STILL not buy the game ANYWAY.

Then LAN party other games if you won't buy every seat. Again, I feel little sympathy for those that are already pushing or breaking a very reasonable contract.

--

Perhaps they'll lose from this decision, perhaps they'll win from it. Regardless, I support it.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Connect them to a router then. If you have the network cables, you have the power.

And what would solve this exactly if you don't have access to broadband?

That's why you play it locally and not with random people on BNet.

This didn't answer the question at all.

Quite frankly, I support the idea of having to buy a copy per seat.

For 2 hours of gaming, no one will pay 50 €.

 

[Deathcom3s]

For 2 hours of gaming, no one will pay 50 €.

Who's dumb enough to buy a $50 game and only play it for 2 hours?