Spring RTS Engine

As you may have heard, SC2 will not feature LAN multilayer support. The only multiplayer option is to log onto battle.net for the SC2 matchmaking service. In a word this is stupid. LAN is a standard feature we should expect, especially in an RTS.

I know online petitions rarely work, but it doesn't hurt to try:

http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html

There's no-one else to blame for this move but you. Blizz realized that games are being pirated and removed LAN to encourage people to buy it instead of warezing and playing with friends.

To me, it doesnt matter as every goddamn place in the world is already connected to the internet~~

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

I expect cracked servers to be available within 1 month of launch anyway.

Try Spring.

spam sc2 forums with that

Firstly, I generally buy my games, and I intended to buy SC2.

Secondly, removing LAN won't be a barrier to pirates, but only an annoyance for genuine buyers. I can't imagine that with a game as big as starcraft some group won't be able to create private servers or that some sort of patch won't be made. In this respect this is no different than an intrusive and ineffective DRM scheme.

Thirdly, the internet isn't as ubiquitous as you think. What about people in rural or developing regions with limited or expensive service. What about lan parties - do you really expect groups ranging from 5 to 100 or more to have to share an internet connection to log into battle.net to play a person two feet away and what if they don't have a suitable connection for large numbers? What about people who do have access to the internet, but latency make online unplayable? What about people such as military service persons, foreign service persons, or others who don't have suitable network access while being deployed for long periods? What about korea, where starcraft LAN is played competitively at a national level, and LAN is necessary for minimal latency.

Lastly, this isn't about you. You might be happy using whatever matchmaking service blizzard offers, but that gives you no right to deny the complaints of others as nonsense. There are a lot of people like me who see LAN as a standard and necessary feature.

not surprising.

eh blizzard is dead to me and my heart is heavier for it.

Relative wrote:Firstly, I generally buy my games, and I intended to buy SC2.

Didnt mean you spesifically, but if you look at for example Garena (which houses the majority of dota players), it provides roughly 200k players with a access to wc3 without the need of a legit version

When game devs are openly saying that piracy hurts sales, you cant seriously say that piracy doesnt affect the income of a game company, which was my point.

Secondly, removing LAN won't be a barrier to pirates, but only an annoyance for genuine buyers. I can't imagine that with a game as big as starcraft some group won't be able to create private servers or that some sort of patch won't be made. In this respect this is no different than an intrusive and ineffective DRM scheme.

Firstly, who is to blame for this again? The devs for trying to fight piracy or the pirates who created the problem in the first place? =P

And yes, it wont be a barrier to pirates, people will still dl it , but its gonna make things harder to create those hacked servers(garena for example works on the lan basis)

Thirdly, the internet isn't as ubiquitous as you think. What about people in rural or developing regions with limited or expensive service.

I live summers in a place where the nearest shop is ~50km away in the middle of a forest(nearest town being even further away), and i have a decent network access there. The only places i can think of that dont have adequate connections are Siberia, Africa and other frontier regions like that, but the question remains that could those people even play the damn game, Since 1000Ôé¼ computers arent really the most important things for people living in developing countries/regions~~

What about lan parties - do you really expect groups ranging from 5 to 100 or more to have to share an internet connection to log into battle.net to play a person two feet away

good point, missing lan is going to be problematic here

What about people who do have access to the internet, but latency make online unplayable?

I dont see how LAN feature could help them here, You want people to play on the internet, but how is the LAN feature going to remove the latency if im playing a chinese from finland?~~

What about people such as military service persons, foreign service persons, or others who don't have suitable network access while being deployed for long periods?

Their progaming career is just gonna wait through their deployment then i guess ~~

What about korea, where starcraft LAN is played competitively at a national level, and LAN is necessary for minimal latency.

Again, this is going to be a problem propably, but a new TL post said that the devs are working together with GOM on the competitive esport issues, im guessing things like this are in consideration for them~_~

Lastly, this isn't about you. You might be happy using whatever matchmaking service blizzard offers, but that gives you no right to deny the complaints of others as nonsense.

Oh im sorry for posting my opinion in a thread made by you in a public forum, you didnt want anyone to reply anyway did you?

There are a lot of people like me who see LAN as a standard and necessary feature.

Yes, i see it as a standard and a necessary feature too, the point of my post was simply to say that the problem was created by YOU (the consumer), And while it will create some problems, i dont think its as big as you make it be since a lot of games already use this feature ( dawn of war 2 for example)

Two points:

Secondly, removing LAN won't be a barrier to pirates, but only an annoyance for genuine buyers. I can't imagine that with a game as big as starcraft some group won't be able to create private servers or that some sort of patch won't be made. In this respect this is no different than an intrusive and ineffective DRM scheme.

Firstly, who is to blame for this again? The devs for trying to fight piracy or the pirates who created the problem in the first place? =P

And yes, it wont be a barrier to pirates, people will still dl it , but its gonna make things harder to create those hacked servers(garena for example works on the lan basis)

Why should genuine consumers be inconvenienced and denied a necessary feature due to the actions of others? I can be sympathetic to the motivation of the dev's actions, but I still can't justify them, especially when they are ineffective.

What about people who do have access to the internet, but latency make online unplayable?

I dont see how LAN feature could help them here, You want people to play on the internet, but how is the LAN feature going to remove the latency if im playing a chinese from finland?~~

I know that services like gameranger exist, but most people use LAN LOCALLY. They don't use LAN to play someone halfway across the world; they generally use it to play people within a local network no more than 100 metres away.

Relative wrote: I know that services like gameranger exist, but most people use LAN LOCALLY. They don't use LAN to play someone halfway across the world; they generally use it to play people within a local network no more than 100 metres away.

lol yeah some of us have REAL LIFE FRIENDS

Relative wrote:people use LAN LOCALLY

omagad no wai

Local Area Network... Locally....
Who would have thought.

They don't use LAN to play someone halfway across the world; they generally use it to play people within a local network no more than 100 metres away.

Haha bullshit, there is a large portion who abuse VPNs to play for free.

rattle wrote:

They don't use LAN to play someone halfway across the world; they generally use it to play people within a local network no more than 100 metres away.

Haha bullshit, there is a large portion who abuse VPNs to play for free.

You conveniently ignored the sentence prior to that one.

I know that services like gameranger exist, but most people use LAN LOCALLY.

a better option mightve been to include a multiplayer spawn installl, which installs a version of SC2 that does not need the CD but can only join LAN games- cant host, has no single player content etc etc

I've heard the Warcraft III betas lacked LAN support as well, but the released game surely had it right from the start. Maybe they are going that same way again with SC2.

I Protest against the Protesters.. Pirates need work you know..

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:a better option mightve been to include a multiplayer spawn installl, which installs a version of SC2 that does not need the CD but can only join LAN games- cant host, has no single player content etc etc

+1