No LAN Play For Starcraft II


Recommended Posts

That's a little disappointing. Most of my family (meaning my brothers etc.) loved playing Starcraft via LAN in my house being we are all connected to the same network.

Now I have to deal with Battle .NET just to get a game in. With that said they better fix the 1 person per network on Battle .NET issue that plagued the first Starcraft.

I suppose we can thank all the pirates for this. Abusing Hamachi, Garena and other LAN-over-Internet software for internet play with pirated copies.

And how will this thwart piracy? They'll crack battle.net authentication out of the product alongside any copy protection, quickly develop a server emulator and whoosh they'll be playing just like they were before. Poor excuse is a poor excuse.

The only people who will be butt-funked here will be the legit owners who now have to resort to dubious hacked servers/software to allow LAN gaming. Hooray for that.

Seriously, it's 2009. There's Internet everywhere, or well, if there's a place without Internet there probably won't be Starcraft 2 either anyway.

What happens if battle.net goes down during a tournament? What if the customers ISP goes down? What if Blizzzard decides to ban you from their battle.net? What if..

Yes, there are several reasons why having a non-auth-LAN-only gameplay is a good idea and having 0 ping vs your opponent is a good reason if any.

If it was really that easy to just hack LAN gameplay in to a game we'd see more games with that kind of hacks, but we don't. Besides, Blizzard will most likely supply tournaments (the big ones with cash prizes etc) with special LAN enabled copies of the game, like they have those WoW Arena things used at tournaments.

Now I have to deal with Battle .NET just to get a game in. With that said they better fix the 1 person per network on Battle .NET issue that plagued the first Starcraft.

The old battle.net was 4 connections per IP (network, that is), I had no problem playing online (Starcraft or Diablo II) with me and 2 friends being on the same IP. If we tried launching more clients, 4 would connect fine, 5 would cause 1 client to randomly disconnect.

Ok to clear up a few misconceptions in this thread...

Battle.Net 2.0 is working in the same way Battle.Net 1.0 is, its P2P. So, if all players are on the same network.. then players will send the information over LAN, not the internet.. The same it did in the original starcraft.

The only thing that has changed, is that there is no direct LAN option.. You are required to login to Battle.NET first for authentication and thats it. So you can still get LAN speeds, without disconnects.. As long as you have a intnernet connection.

Ok to clear up a few misconceptions in this thread...

Battle.Net 2.0 is working in the same way Battle.Net 1.0 is, its P2P. So, if all players are on the same network.. then players will send the information over LAN, not the internet.. The same it did in the original starcraft.

The only thing that has changed, is that there is no direct LAN option.. You are required to login to Battle.NET first for authentication and thats it. So you can still get LAN speeds, without disconnects.. As long as you have a intnernet connection.

Still, what if your internet is down or b.net is down? It's pretty shoddy if you ask me :/.

Edited by Guest
Still, what if your internet is down or b.net is down? It's pretty shoddy if you ask me :/.

It's like MMOs, if the servers are down or your net is, you don't play. But Blizzard tend to have fairly good uptime on the servers, leaving downtime to a minimum.

Wonder if single player is gonna demand you to be logged in too.

but I thought SC2 battle.net was supposed to be free? or at least for the basic gameplay modes?

AFAIK, there will be no charge for playing SC2 on Battle.net (there wasn't, and still isn't, for the original SC (now SC Anthology) on BattleNet today).

Has AB said differently?

I don't really think this is a "money hungry" gimmick. Blizzard has stated many times before that Battle.Net will always remain free. It's certainly not about stopping piracy, because the game still has a single player mode, and although Blizzard's spawn technology was incredible back in the day, it's just not practical anymore.

Blizzard wants to capture as much of a 'community' feel as it possibly can with the new Battle.net, because it promotes striving for goals, which boosts the replay factor. It's purely about stat tracking...

I don't really think this is a "money hungry" gimmick. Blizzard has stated many times before that Battle.Net will always remain free. It's certainly not about stopping piracy, because the game still has a single player mode, and although Blizzard's spawn technology was incredible back in the day, it's just not practical anymore.

Blizzard wants to capture as much of a 'community' feel as it possibly can with the new Battle.net, because it promotes striving for goals, which boosts the replay factor. It's purely about stat tracking...

But they also said that there may be some paid services, like creating custom leagues/tournaments and stuff related to pro gaming.

hmm well the game data would only travel between the clients, it shouldn't route through bnet. So the pings for a LAN game should still be 1ms, I hope

I don't think so. Without any LAN play, you're forced to log into Battle.net to play against other users. That means any online activity will be carried out with that service. Essentially, you won't get the same reduction in latency as you would in a LAN game.

On the plus side, this will mean more players on Battle.net at any given point in time. And more players means Blizzard will put more money and resources into powering Battle.net. Hopefully, this will translate into better ping, features, etc.

Thankfully, Real-Time Strategy games aren't 'sensitive' to ping times as much as other games, like First Person Shooters. Yes of course you'd want smooth gameplay and that you will have, even by going through Battle.net when in a LAN "environment".

Indeed. Unfortunately, the side effect is quite daunting. For example: If Player A joins with a ping of 200ms and plays, he'll slow down Players B, C, and D. Fortunately, there's an option to drop a "laggy" player from the game.

It could be an issue with a regular game over Battle.net, but I don't think that'll be an issue with pseudo-LAN games. Why? Well, think of it this way: If you're with a bunch of friends who want to play some StarCraft II, then chances are you'll be playing from the same Internet connection. Logically, one would assume that each person's ping would be similar.

I think battle.net will be free, as long as you pay for the game.

Its like this, my teacher who got me to play SC(yes a teacher, 7th grade social studies) hooked us on SC becuase 1 day close to summer we were done and had old school macbooks(yes ibooks) haha and he had 1 copy but installed it on all 10 lappys.

He wasnt pirating or anything since he installed a "spawn" i think its called and we played local.

But I dont play blizzard becuase I know a few people who lately passed around 1 copy between 15 people to install it and play and its working just fine.

I have a legal copy so im fine. But I undersatnd what there doing. Now if they truly DO make battle.net paid service like WOW is, then **** that. I dont need SC that bad.

Then they will put a bad taste in 1/2 of the SC Fan Group.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      572
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!