If your kids are old enough to play the damn game, then they should be old enough to play on battle.net. In fact, if your kids can't handle being called a bitch over the internet then there's problems to begin with.
Your point is weak, game ratings are just valid during the sale/buy. If a parent buy a M (ESRB) or MA15+ game, the responsability are now with the parent. Which means that a 12 yrs old kid CAN play Diablo 3 legitimatly (he just cant buy it). And if he is 12 yrs old, I would probably think twice before sending my child on Bnet. Ya, definatly wouldn't let him/her.
Doesn't LAN depend on who's hosting it? So like if someone using AOL dialup is hosting of course it won't work very well.
Anyway I prefer either single player or online anyway. Although I'm sure a modded LAN support isn't beyond reach. Just like there is private servers of every game it's just a matter of redirecting the IP your connecting to from the companies to a private one. And since the game is single player which means it's all possible client sided it won't be hard to do.
Doesn't LAN depend on who's hosting it? So like if someone using AOL dialup is hosting of course it won't work very well.
Anyway I prefer either single player or online anyway. Although I'm sure a modded LAN support isn't beyond reach. Just like there is private servers of every game it's just a matter of redirecting the IP your connecting to from the companies to a private one. And since the game is single player which means it's all possible client sided it won't be hard to do.
First: Lan depends on the host, but if it's really LAN, then the connection has nothing to do with the speed, only the CPU is working more, but it's nearly nothing. If it's a fake lan like with Hamachi, then yes, internet connection of the host can be a problem.
Though, I am not sure but, I think it's kind of the same thing for Battle.net... Battle.net do not HOST games, they just manage them and annouce them on their list. Which means, if a player creates a game, he is by default the host, then if he leaves, battlenet holds it or give it to another player ingame. After a few mins, if bnet didn't find a new host, it drops the game. I am not 100% sure tho. But for Starcraft, this is exactly the case.
Ah, I think that makes sense, then. The only LAN I've played has been on Hamachi, strictly. That definitely makes more sense because it's not like I have a really crappy router or anything like that.
Although I'm pretty sure Battle.net hosts all games on closed Battle.net. Open is where they're hosted on the creator's computer and only listed by Battle.net (and consequently why hacks are so rampant there and when the host leaves the game drops).
There are many reasons beyond protecting kids to want LAN play.
The Internet is not perfectly connected to the entire planet. Where I live, slow/dropped connections are fairly common. Plus, I just prefer playing with friends in the same room. There is absolutely no good reason that our computers should have to connect to the Internet just to play with people in the same room. My friends and I all pay for our own copies, so we don't deserve be babysat/authenticated either.
I have absolutely no ill will toward Battle.net. It's a great service, but the addition of LAN play will not harm that community.
Though, I am not sure but, I think it's kind of the same thing for Battle.net... Battle.net do not HOST games, they just manage them and annouce them on their list. Which means, if a player creates a game, he is by default the host, then if he leaves, battlenet holds it or give it to another player ingame. After a few mins, if bnet didn't find a new host, it drops the game. I am not 100% sure tho. But for Starcraft, this is exactly the case.
You are wrong, it doesn't work like that since Diablo 2. Games are hosted on B.Net.
EDIT: The reason why LAN is not included in D3 or SC2 is pretty simple - do not give hackers server-side net code to work with and everyone's life will be a lot happier.
You are wrong, it doesn't work like that since Diablo 2. Games are hosted on B.Net.
EDIT: The reason why LAN is not included in D3 or SC2 is pretty simple - do not give hackers server-side net code to work with and everyone's life will be a lot happier.
Diablo 2 was hacked.
WoW was hacked.
Every popular game under the sun has been hacked, with and without server code.
It's a stupid decision to remove a valuable feature on the premise of what several idiots will do anyway.
Every popular game under the sun has been hacked, with and without server code.
It's a stupid decision to remove a valuable feature on the premise of what several idiots will do anyway.
Hacking in its broadest sense is more prevalent on Diablo II and older games because of the extensive reliance on client-side programming. WoW is not nearly as bad as Diablo II- if you claim this you're cracked. WoW is much more server-reliant.
The point here isn't saying that all hacking will be gone. No one is claiming that and we all know all hacking won't ever be gone- it's the other side of the coin. What we're arguing is limiting the threshold of hackers and thereby reducing greatly their ability to completely soil the enjoyment of an online game for millions of people as opposed to maybe the few thousand that constantly play on a LAN connection. And I'm talking in reference to online play versus LAN play for all of their games.
The point here isn't saying that all hacking will be gone. No one is claiming that and we all know all hacking won't ever be gone- it's the other side of the coin. What we're arguing is limiting the threshold of hackers and thereby reducing greatly their ability to completely soil the enjoyment of an online game for millions of people as opposed to maybe the few thousand that constantly play on a LAN connection. And I'm talking in reference to online play versus LAN play for all of their games.
LAN play does not have to have any effect on online players whatsoever. Worried about hackers using LAN play for protocol analysis? Simple. Use unique protocols when playing online and playing over LAN. Hackers don't need access to server code anyway. Fake Battle.nets will surly appear. I'll be supporting any efforts to create a Battle.net emulator. I'll certainly be running a pseudo Battle.net on my computer for my LAN parties.
It is fallacious to assume that there is any degree of mutual exclusion between LAN play and online play. They can coexist peacefully.
LAN play does not have to have any effect on online players whatsoever. Worried about hackers using LAN play for protocol analysis? Simple. Use unique protocols when playing online and playing over LAN. Hackers don't need access to server code anyway. Fake Battle.nets will surly appear. I'll be supporting any efforts to create a Battle.net emulator. I'll certainly be running a pseudo Battle.net on my computer for my LAN parties.
Programming to accommodate LAN opens the program up to intense client-side interaction with third-party programs in reference to first-party play online. Yes, it does.
It is fallacious to assume that there is any degree of mutual exclusion between LAN play and online play. They can coexist peacefully.
They can. Yes. LAN doesn't go out and stab Battle.net to death or anything. It's the hackers that hurt the online experience which, I will say again and again, is the VAST MAJORITY of players. Programming for LAN opens the program itself up to client-side injection by hackers.
Programming to accommodate LAN opens the program up to intense client-side interaction with third-party programs in reference to first-party play online. Yes, it does.
They can. Yes. LAN doesn't go out and stab Battle.net to death or anything. It's the hackers that hurt the online experience which, I will say again and again, is the VAST MAJORITY of players. Programming for LAN opens the program itself up to client-side injection by hackers.
These statements have no validity whatsoever. Are you a programmer? I am. I am working to graduate from a university soon. Having a LAN option does no such thing unless, like we were discussing, it shared a protocol with the online play. If they use different systems of communication, LAN options open up no such security holes. Perhaps, if lousy programmers were doing this game, I'd be worried, but I trust Blizzard to do the job.
Regardless, all your arguments basically amount to "in order to stop piracy, Blizzard should just not release the game at all". If anything can remotely go wrong, you think it should be dropped. We should just get rid of the Internet. Too many hackers on it.
These statements have no validity whatsoever. Are you a programmer?
Yes, I am. I work with databases and server-side programming.
I am. I am working to graduate from a university soon.
Yeah, I'm sure you're telling the truth. How convenient that jewel just happens to pop-up now.
Having a LAN option does no such thing unless, like we were discussing, it shared a protocol with the online play. If they use different systems of communication, LAN options open up no such security holes.
Yes, it does. I've described how in multiple posts so far and you've simply ignored them all.
Perhaps, if lousy programmers were doing this game, I'd be worried, but I trust Blizzard to do the job.
You aren't trusting them to "do the right thing" in your eyes and include LAN for Diablo III. You also apparently don't trust Blizzard when they say:
[...]we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.
So I see no reason to believe you on that claim.
Regardless, all your arguments basically amount to "in order to stop piracy, Blizzard should just not release the game at all".
Lol? Where did I ever say that? Where did I even remotely say that? You're shoving words in my mouth.
If anything can remotely go wrong, you think it should be dropped. We should just get rid of the Internet. Too many hackers on it.
No, I also never said that. It's removing a large programming loop-hole that leaves the code heavily vulnerable to back-end injection. It's removing unnecessary risk. It's upgrading in the face of something that hardly gets used in relation to online play.
Yes, I am. I work with databases and server-side programming.
BROTHER!
Quote from "Seth" »
Yeah, I'm sure you're telling the truth. How convenient that jewel just happens to pop-up now.
Yeaaah...
Quote from "Seth" »
Lol? Where did I ever say that? Where did I even remotely say that? You're shoving words in my mouth.
Of course I was shoving words in your mouth. I was summing up my perception of your attitude. You seem to think it is impossible for LAN play to exist securely. According to you, if it presents any danger whatsoever, it should not even be considered.
Quote from "Seth" »
No, I also never said that. It's removing a large programming loop-hole that leaves the code heavily vulnerable to back-end injection. It's removing unnecessary risk. It's upgrading in the face of something that hardly gets used in relation to online play.
Again, it gets used plenty. You just don't see any of it.
Of course I was shoving words in your mouth. I was summing up my perception of your attitude. You seem to think it is impossible for LAN play to exist securely. According to you, if it presents any danger whatsoever, it should not even be considered.
Again, it gets used plenty. You just don't see any of it.
it can be secured. but how many people wanna secure it that well. i have alot of friends that connect there computers and play call of duty 5. i have also heard of them sharing files. well. how do you know that the person sharing that file, the file could be corrupted.
so you have to be on a network or lan computers. the other guy might have a bad file and bam. computer down for the count.
this doesnt go to sc2 specifically but more towards lan computers in general.
this is all i really know. so if your going to put me down with this stuff. then go ahead
LAN
My kids aren't playing ANY multiplayer game that I don't control.
I'm with you on that, I don't want my son being subjected to those 5 or so years older than he dropping the disparaging comments on him until he is much older.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your point is weak, game ratings are just valid during the sale/buy. If a parent buy a M (ESRB) or MA15+ game, the responsability are now with the parent. Which means that a 12 yrs old kid CAN play Diablo 3 legitimatly (he just cant buy it). And if he is 12 yrs old, I would probably think twice before sending my child on Bnet. Ya, definatly wouldn't let him/her.
I know, that's why I was initially wondering why everyone was so happy about LAN. I don't know why it happens.
Anyway I prefer either single player or online anyway. Although I'm sure a modded LAN support isn't beyond reach. Just like there is private servers of every game it's just a matter of redirecting the IP your connecting to from the companies to a private one. And since the game is single player which means it's all possible client sided it won't be hard to do.
First: Lan depends on the host, but if it's really LAN, then the connection has nothing to do with the speed, only the CPU is working more, but it's nearly nothing. If it's a fake lan like with Hamachi, then yes, internet connection of the host can be a problem.
Though, I am not sure but, I think it's kind of the same thing for Battle.net... Battle.net do not HOST games, they just manage them and annouce them on their list. Which means, if a player creates a game, he is by default the host, then if he leaves, battlenet holds it or give it to another player ingame. After a few mins, if bnet didn't find a new host, it drops the game. I am not 100% sure tho. But for Starcraft, this is exactly the case.
Although I'm pretty sure Battle.net hosts all games on closed Battle.net. Open is where they're hosted on the creator's computer and only listed by Battle.net (and consequently why hacks are so rampant there and when the host leaves the game drops).
The Internet is not perfectly connected to the entire planet. Where I live, slow/dropped connections are fairly common. Plus, I just prefer playing with friends in the same room. There is absolutely no good reason that our computers should have to connect to the Internet just to play with people in the same room. My friends and I all pay for our own copies, so we don't deserve be babysat/authenticated either.
I have absolutely no ill will toward Battle.net. It's a great service, but the addition of LAN play will not harm that community.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
LOL! At least Diablo 3 will be fun by itself. I won't be buying SC2 anymore. The whole point of buying that game was to have LAN parties with friends.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
Well not even starcraft 2 will have a lan which imo is a lot worse thing than diablo3
Starcraft is a really popular lan game.. its a classic in lan parties.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
EDIT: The reason why LAN is not included in D3 or SC2 is pretty simple - do not give hackers server-side net code to work with and everyone's life will be a lot happier.
Diablo 2 was hacked.
WoW was hacked.
Every popular game under the sun has been hacked, with and without server code.
It's a stupid decision to remove a valuable feature on the premise of what several idiots will do anyway.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
I played through and enjoyed Diablo II when I was 7; single player and online.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Hacking in its broadest sense is more prevalent on Diablo II and older games because of the extensive reliance on client-side programming. WoW is not nearly as bad as Diablo II- if you claim this you're cracked. WoW is much more server-reliant.
The point here isn't saying that all hacking will be gone. No one is claiming that and we all know all hacking won't ever be gone- it's the other side of the coin. What we're arguing is limiting the threshold of hackers and thereby reducing greatly their ability to completely soil the enjoyment of an online game for millions of people as opposed to maybe the few thousand that constantly play on a LAN connection. And I'm talking in reference to online play versus LAN play for all of their games.
LAN play does not have to have any effect on online players whatsoever. Worried about hackers using LAN play for protocol analysis? Simple. Use unique protocols when playing online and playing over LAN. Hackers don't need access to server code anyway. Fake Battle.nets will surly appear. I'll be supporting any efforts to create a Battle.net emulator. I'll certainly be running a pseudo Battle.net on my computer for my LAN parties.
It is fallacious to assume that there is any degree of mutual exclusion between LAN play and online play. They can coexist peacefully.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
Programming to accommodate LAN opens the program up to intense client-side interaction with third-party programs in reference to first-party play online. Yes, it does.
They can. Yes. LAN doesn't go out and stab Battle.net to death or anything. It's the hackers that hurt the online experience which, I will say again and again, is the VAST MAJORITY of players. Programming for LAN opens the program itself up to client-side injection by hackers.
These statements have no validity whatsoever. Are you a programmer? I am. I am working to graduate from a university soon. Having a LAN option does no such thing unless, like we were discussing, it shared a protocol with the online play. If they use different systems of communication, LAN options open up no such security holes. Perhaps, if lousy programmers were doing this game, I'd be worried, but I trust Blizzard to do the job.
Regardless, all your arguments basically amount to "in order to stop piracy, Blizzard should just not release the game at all". If anything can remotely go wrong, you think it should be dropped. We should just get rid of the Internet. Too many hackers on it.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
Yes, I am. I work with databases and server-side programming.
Yeah, I'm sure you're telling the truth. How convenient that jewel just happens to pop-up now.
Yes, it does. I've described how in multiple posts so far and you've simply ignored them all.
You aren't trusting them to "do the right thing" in your eyes and include LAN for Diablo III. You also apparently don't trust Blizzard when they say:
So I see no reason to believe you on that claim.
Lol? Where did I ever say that? Where did I even remotely say that? You're shoving words in my mouth.
No, I also never said that. It's removing a large programming loop-hole that leaves the code heavily vulnerable to back-end injection. It's removing unnecessary risk. It's upgrading in the face of something that hardly gets used in relation to online play.
Yeaaah...
Of course I was shoving words in your mouth. I was summing up my perception of your attitude. You seem to think it is impossible for LAN play to exist securely. According to you, if it presents any danger whatsoever, it should not even be considered.
Again, it gets used plenty. You just don't see any of it.
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
it can be secured. but how many people wanna secure it that well. i have alot of friends that connect there computers and play call of duty 5. i have also heard of them sharing files. well. how do you know that the person sharing that file, the file could be corrupted.
so you have to be on a network or lan computers. the other guy might have a bad file and bam. computer down for the count.
this doesnt go to sc2 specifically but more towards lan computers in general.
this is all i really know. so if your going to put me down with this stuff. then go ahead
I'm with you on that, I don't want my son being subjected to those 5 or so years older than he dropping the disparaging comments on him until he is much older.