These servers got jokes.

[Peenchpeench]

Why do the battlenet 2.0 servers suck so horribly? Heroes of Newerth a game in its beta as well, made by some unknown poor company; it has tons of servers with no latency issues. HoN servers have 0 delay, unlike sc2 which has around 1 - 1.5 seconds. When someone lags on HoN, it doesn't create a %**%*%@@ of freezing for the entire game with 3 second freezes every 10 seconds like on sc2. Really Blizzard, rolling in money and you can't even outperform the servers of some newb company? 10 years of fail in the making unless they are going to revamp these servers.

--And I forgot, the HoN servers even let you reconnect if you drop due to whatever reason. It gives you around 2 minutes to log back in and rejoin.

[Gemini]

I am sorry you don't understand the requirements for networking an RTS game that can potentially have millions of users.

[Newcomplex]

Starcraft 2 does not have a 1 to 1.5 second delay. Thats 1000-1500 ms. Perhaps you are simply baked. Try again while not under the influence of pot, the delay is better.

[Dagger]

Shouldnt this go in the suggestions forum?

[Peenchpeench]

I am sorry you don't understand the requirements for networking an RTS game that can potentially have millions of users.

Lol. Neither does blizzard apparently. Care to explain to me how S2 does it for HoN then? Because at the moment their beta has a lot more people than SC2.

[Peenchpeench]

Starcraft 2 does not have a 1 to 1.5 second delay. Thats 1000-1500 ms. Perhaps you are simply baked. Try again while not under the influence of pot, the delay is better.

If everyone in the game has a good connection, then the delay is around .4-.5 seconds. But if there is even one lagger it creates a lot more delay. You obviously haven't played with someone who lags yet. I dread the thought of 4v4 with this system as well.

[Newcomplex]

If everyone in the game has a good connection, then the delay is around .3-.5 seconds. But if there is even one lagger it creates a lot more delay. You obviously haven't played with someone who lags yet. I dread the thought of 4v4 with this system as well.

Yeah, the system sucks right. I was just saying that 1 second delay is completely unreasonable, not even if someone lags :/.

Without a lagger I'm at .3, with a lagger I get ~.7, never 1 second.

I want Iccup lag. gimmeplz

[Peenchpeench]

Yeah, the system sucks right. I was just saying that 1 second delay is completely unreasonable, not even if someone lags :/.

Without a lagger I'm at .3, with a lagger I get ~.7, never 1 second.

I want Iccup lag. gimmeplz



Even .7 delay is unacceptable in my opinion. If you've played HoN you would understand where I'm coming from, they make LC and LAN equivalent speeds from online servers. And the delay is the lesser of the two issues. The constant freezing when there is even just one lagger in the game is the main problem.

[revenge]

Lol. Neither does blizzard apparently. Care to explain to me how S2 does it for HoN then?


I'd be willing to bet that a month after release, battle.net 2 will be handling its millions of users far better than HoN will be handling even 100,000. Blizzard has been doing this for a long time, they know what they are doing.. But for the sake of you being a whiny little crybaby, maybe blizzard doesn't know how to resolve this issue at the moment, that's why they are allowing you to play their game for free.. BETA. The game is in beta, and so is battle.net 2.0

[Nerosky]

The delay isn't even much of a problem it's when you get a lagger that freezes the game every 5 seconds, and everyone else is sitting there watching the little timer go down. The HON system is way better, if you lag it doesn't slow the entire game down only your own, and if you happen to drop you get 5 minutes to come back instead of a automatic lose like in sc2. That seems like a much more fair and less frustrating system than what it currently is for sc2

[Peenchpeench]

I'd be willing to bet that a month after release, battle.net 2 will be handling its millions of users far better than HoN will be handling even 100,000. Blizzard has been doing this for a long time, they know what they are doing.. But for the sake of you being a whiny little crybaby, maybe blizzard doesn't know how to resolve this issue at the moment, that's why they are allowing you to play their game for free.. BETA. The game is in beta, and so is battle.net 2.0



Um, I'm comparing both game betas with an equivalent number of users btw, if you actually read my first post. And from what I can see, the server quality is almost exactly the same as wc3 in terms of delay (not to mention the problems with laggers creating a vortex of fail for entire game); a huge disappointment. Nice name calling too, it makes you seem right.

[Peenchpeench]

The delay isn't even much of a problem it's when you get a lagger that freezes the game every 5 seconds, and everyone else is sitting there watching the little timer go down. The HON system is way better, if you lag it doesn't slow the entire game down only your own, and if you happen to drop you get 5 minutes to come back instead of a automatic lose like in sc2. That seems like a much more fair and less frustrating system than what it currently is for sc2


/agree

[Crazyterran]

The delay isn't even much of a problem it's when you get a lagger that freezes the game every 5 seconds, and everyone else is sitting there watching the little timer go down. The HON system is way better, if you lag it doesn't slow the entire game down only your own, and if you happen to drop you get 5 minutes to come back instead of a automatic lose like in sc2. That seems like a much more fair and less frustrating system than what it currently is for sc2

If I see my opponent DC in a game, I'm going to go in and blast his ass back into the stone age, not sit around and wait for him to get back.

HoN is going to have a hundred thousand people when it's live, and Starcraft 2 will have a million + people.

Oh, and comparing the way a game like HoN, which isn't exactly an RTS, more of an Over the Head RPG, to a game like Starcraft, which if you DC for a minute or two, your base would be half wiped out and you would lose regardless, is freaking retarded.

So, HoN QQers - stop being retarded. Thanks.

[Peenchpeench]

If I see my opponent DC in a game, I'm going to go in and blast his ass back into the stone age, not sit around and wait for him to get back.

HoN is going to have a hundred thousand people when it's live, and Starcraft 2 will have a million + people.

Oh, and comparing the way a game like HoN, which isn't exactly an RTS, more of an Over the Head RPG, to a game like Starcraft, which if you DC for a minute or two, your base would be half wiped out and you would lose regardless, is freaking retarded.

So, HoN QQers - stop being retarded. Thanks.

Not like his partner/s can control him while he reconnects right? Oh wait. How does the number of players even mean anything right now? At this point in time, the HoN servers are looking a LOT more impressive than the SC2 ones, thats unarguable. And if anything HoN has more people in its beta currently. Please think of a valid argument before you start replying. If HoN had to support more people, they would buy more servers in more locations with the same technology, not a confusing concept.

[Nerosky]

If I see my opponent DC in a game, I'm going to go in and blast his ass back into the stone age, not sit around and wait for him to get back.

HoN is going to have a hundred thousand people when it's live, and Starcraft 2 will have a million + people.

Oh, and comparing the way a game like HoN, which isn't exactly an RTS, more of an Over the Head RPG, to a game like Starcraft, which if you DC for a minute or two, your base would be half wiped out and you would lose regardless, is freaking retarded.

So, HoN QQers - stop being retarded. Thanks.

For 1v1, yeah the reconnect doesn't work but for any type of team games your team could control you while you take 2 mins to rejoin the game.

The number of people when its live doesn't really matter at all are you trying to say Blizzard is going for quantity over quality? I'm sure a company like blizzard could easily do both.

Also for a bnet 2.0 there really isn't any improvements that affect the lag or in game functions and its been 10 yearsish? even on WC3 most people downloaded programs to reduce the lag. HON also i haven't even heard of hackers on it at all, whereas in wc3 playing in tournaments even i was constantly drop hacked and maphacks everywhere. I haven't seen any of this in sc2 beta yet but if there isn't any lag improvements from WC3 battle.net to battle.net 2.0 I don't feel like they would put in a lot of counter hacker improvements either.

[Crazyterran]

Not like his partner/s can control him while he reconnects right? Oh wait. How does the number of players even mean anything right now? At this point in time, the HoN servers are looking a LOT more impressive than the SC2 ones, thats unarguable. And if anything HoN has more people in its beta currently. Please think of a valid argument before you start replying. If HoN had to support more people, they would buy more servers in more locations with the same technology, not a confusing concept.

Battle.net 2.0 is a beta client, and as such, is going to have kinks to work out. I'm sure S2's servers and client is much more tested then Starcraft 2's is.

The HoN beta has also been out months longer than the Starcraft 2 Beta.

So, sure, HoN's client runs better, since it's older, more basic (i've found, atleast, woo, click game list, find game.)

Really, go back to playing HoN if you like it better. You can go pick your Scout and tell yourself you are so pro at it.



For 1v1, yeah the reconnect doesn't work but for any type of team games your team could control you while you take 2 mins to rejoin the game.




Even in 2v2, having one person microing both armies would be balls. Probably in 3v3 as well, but 4v4 it would be more manageable. It works in HoN because it's NOT an RTS, which require you to manage both your base and your army at the same time. Having one person manage two bases is unrealistic, and would still end up with a loss for the team with a disconnect.

Comparing a game where you just manage your hero and it's items to a game where you manage an economy and an army is freaking retarded, by the way.

[Lghtningwolf]

wow people are retarded as usual. The whole waiting on the lagger is to give the lagger a chance to win, as said before, if you D/Ced you WOULD be annihilated. Also you can give control to units, but you can not spend another players resources, even if you give them control.

The facts are that :

1. SC2's "Lag" is from another player and blizzard built a system around making sure said player doesnt lose given the style on how Blizzard games are designed by.

Blizzard has a 250 MS cap on their games, probably designed to make people not run TOO fast by having 100% top of the line computers, against people whos computers are under par.

Is their system perfect? no, is their system designed to work to help lower spec computers not feel sub par. their systems are designed to give ALL players who can run the game have a decent chance at winning if their skill is there.


if you dont like running with laggy people, stop playing Blizzard games, they build around that to give the laggy player a chance, but consistant lagging does get them kicked after that timer runs out.

[Gemini]

HoN is using dedicated servers. Those cost more money than the type Blizz is using. The more people log onto HoN, the laggier it will get. Just look at WoW.

There are a lot less units on screen for HoN. A lot less server requirements than an RTS where there's over 50 units in the first 5 minutes.

HoN is not pay to play. If they cannot afford new servers, and they get laggy because of the user load, then you will be stuck with a laggy game at peak times. That is the danger of using dedicated servers.

HoN is good for what it is. That is what they need for their game to succeed. They did a good job on that. But the type of server model is not good for a game that can have a potential of millions of users, with hundreds of thousands of games, with a lot more data transfer required.

Sc2 is not HoN. Comparisons are pointless.

HoN has 30k users. Try it with 100k and tell me if there is no lag.

[Peenchpeench]

Battle.net 2.0 is a beta client, and as such, is going to have kinks to work out. I'm sure S2's servers and client is much more tested then Starcraft 2's is.

The HoN beta has also been out months longer than the Starcraft 2 Beta.

So, sure, HoN's client runs better, since it's older, more basic (i've found, atleast, woo, click game list, find game.)

Really, go back to playing HoN if you like it better. You can go pick your Scout and tell yourself you are so pro at it.

Even in 2v2, having one person microing both armies would be balls. Probably in 3v3 as well, but 4v4 it would be more manageable. It works in HoN because it's NOT an RTS, which require you to manage both your base and your army at the same time. Having one person manage two bases is unrealistic, and would still end up with a loss for the team with a disconnect.

Comparing a game where you just manage your hero and it's items to a game where you manage an economy and an army is freaking retarded, by the way.



A skilled player will at least be able to produce units from his partners base and control their armies until he gets back, which obviously you are not. And saying that HoN's client is more basic is absolutely dumbfounding me. So blizzard is going with more sophisticated crappier servers? Makes a lot of sense buddy. And your little scout comment was funny, it has a lot to do with the point I'm making.

[Peenchpeench]

wow people are retarded as usual. The whole waiting on the lagger is to give the lagger a chance to win, as said before, if you D/Ced you WOULD be annihilated. Also you can give control to units, but you can not spend another players resources, even if you give them control.

The facts are that :

1. SC2's "Lag" is from another player and blizzard built a system around making sure said player doesnt lose given the style on how Blizzard games are designed by.

Blizzard has a 250 MS cap on their games, probably designed to make people not run TOO fast by having 100% top of the line computers, against people whos computers are under par.

Is their system perfect? no, is their system designed to work to help lower spec computers not feel sub par. their systems are designed to give ALL players who can run the game have a decent chance at winning if their skill is there.


if you dont like running with laggy people, stop playing Blizzard games, they build around that to give the laggy player a chance, but consistant lagging does get them kicked after that timer runs out.

The problem is that consistent lagging DOESN'T get them kicked out. You can lag for and freeze the game for 2 seconds every 10 seconds, without the disconnect timer even opening. Yeah okay, blizzard is making their servers lag horribly when others are lagging on purpose, this makes total sense.

[Peenchpeench]

HoN is using dedicated servers. Those cost more money than the type Blizz is using. The more people log onto HoN, the laggier it will get. Just look at WoW.

There are a lot less units on screen for HoN. A lot less server requirements than an RTS where there's over 50 units in the first 5 minutes.

HoN is not pay to play. If they cannot afford new servers, and they get laggy because of the user load, then you will be stuck with a laggy game at peak times. That is the danger of using dedicated servers.

HoN is good for what it is. That is what they need for their game to succeed. They did a good job on that. But the type of server model is not good for a game that can have a potential of millions of users, with hundreds of thousands of games, with a lot more data transfer required.

Sc2 is not HoN. Comparisons are pointless.

HoN has 30k users. Try it with 100k and tell me if there is no lag.

Starcraft 2 isn't pay to play either? And if HoN had 100k people they would be able to buy a lot more servers than they have now. Your point is moot. And your comment about dedicated servers is lol. So you think SC2 is hosted on...listen servers? Do you're research before you pretend like you know what your talking about.

[Colrath]

A skilled player will at least be able to produce units from his partners base and control their armies until he gets back, which obviously you are not. And saying that HoN's client is more basic is absolutely dumbfounding me. So blizzard is going with more sophisticated crappier servers? Makes a lot of sense buddy. And your little scout comment was funny, it has a lot to do with the point I'm making.

Get that idea out of your head, this isn't some playground. If a player get's disconnected, the opponent is going to attack it. 30 seconds of doing nothing in this game, can have a really bad ripple effect for that play throughout the game. Let alone five minuets.

If you get disconnected, you've lost. End of story.

The lag is 250ms, anyone complaining about 1500ms is either wrong of playing with two plastic cups and a string. Blizzard has also pointed out, that the 250ms is a bit high and they will put some time into finding the happy go lucky middle-ground.

[Peenchpeench]

Get that idea out of your head, this isn't some playground. If a player get's disconnected, the opponent is going to attack it. 30 seconds of doing nothing in this game, can have a really bad ripple effect for that play throughout the game. Let alone five minuets.

If you get disconnected, you've lost. End of story.

The lag is 250ms, anyone complaining about 1500ms is either wrong of playing with two plastic cups and a string. Blizzard has also pointed out, that the 250ms is a bit high and they will put some time into finding the happy go lucky middle-ground.

Are you not reading the previous posts? In 1v1's yeah reconnecting is useless. But in team games his partner/s can easily control his army and spam out units from his racks while he reconnects. Yeah it may give him a disadvantage later on in terms of macro, but it does not mean they lost the game by any means.

[Nephrahim]

I love these posts where HoN lovers come and tell people their game is better.

It reminds me of WoW and how people would periodically come and tell people that Star wars Galaxies/Eve online/Conan/Warhammer online/City of Heroes/Champions Online/Star Trek Online/that korean MMO thing that was the hot thing for a while is better.

[Anon]

Has there even been a stress test for SCII yet?

I'm not sure we're at the point where Blizzard is actually tuning the servers extensively.I doubt they plan for the lag to be like this come 1 week after retail is released.

[Newcomplex]

I love these posts where HoN lovers come and tell people their game is better.

It reminds me of WoW and how people would periodically come and tell people that Star wars Galaxies/Eve online/Conan/Warhammer online/City of Heroes/Champions Online/Star Trek Online/that korean MMO thing that was the hot thing for a while is better.

Not really, because you couldn't make a case in any of those in which the point of contention was that their game was more stable.

[Peenchpeench]

I love these posts where HoN lovers come and tell people their game is better.

It reminds me of WoW and how people would periodically come and tell people that Star wars Galaxies/Eve online/Conan/Warhammer online/City of Heroes/Champions Online/Star Trek Online/that korean MMO thing that was the hot thing for a while is better.

I love these posts that make up BS. I never stated HoN is a better game ever, nor do I even believe that. What I'm saying has nothing to do with how good the game is, merely server performance. And if you can't see that Blizzard could learn a few things from HoN server hosting then your being ignorant. Which judging by your post just now, you are.

[myst]

well, are you a wow player? because for oceanic players as far as i understand, requires some form of proxy to drop their ridiculous 1500 ms or higher ping to 300 ms lets say.



all you need is a proxy, or move countries.

[Nerosky]

Not sure why a bunch of you are getting all angry because Hon was mentioned, just trying to use that as a example of improvements they could do. Also Not sure why you wouldn't want Blizzard to improve the lag or dropping in sc2. If I were to play you in a 1v1 or 2v2 right now there would be no difference if it was the battle.net 2.0 or WC3's battle.net, that's all I'm just wondering why there wasn't any improvements in that area for bnet 2.0.

[Crazyterran]

A skilled player will at least be able to produce units from his partners base and control their armies until he gets back, which obviously you are not. And saying that HoN's client is more basic is absolutely dumbfounding me. So blizzard is going with more sophisticated crappier servers? Makes a lot of sense buddy. And your little scout comment was funny, it has a lot to do with the point I'm making.

Yes, because 2 players against the one player, even if all of them are at an equal skill level, the one player is going to manage to micro and manage both armies efficiently in order to not take a significant enough hit to put their team at a serious disadvantage for the rest of the game, and likely leading to a loss.

Clearly, pointing out the obvious retardation with your posts makes me unskilled. Clearly.

And yes, in HoN, you click game list, pick game. When chat and all the other features for B.Net 2.0 goes live, it'll be significantly more sophisticated than HoNs. I'm not saying it's going to be crappier, but I imagine the beta for Starcraft 2, which is expected to have around 10,000 people, is going to get a lower priority than Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, and Starcraft 1.

There's always been laggers in every Blizzard game. Have you played Warcraft 3? Or Starcraft 1? They get their 60 seconds to stabilize their connection, or they drop.

Blizzard caters to people with less than perfect connections and non-top of the line computers? The Monsters.

[Wretched]

Originally posted by Dagger.stone

Shouldnt this go in the suggestions forum?

actually there should be an 'Unreasonable QQ' Forum for this one

[Huma]

i have yet to notice lag....so yeah!

[Peenchpeench]

Yes, because 2 players against the one player, even if all of them are at an equal skill level, the one player is going to manage to micro and manage both armies efficiently in order to not take a significant enough hit to put their team at a serious disadvantage for the rest of the game, and likely leading to a loss.

Clearly, pointing out the obvious retardation with your posts makes me unskilled. Clearly.

And yes, in HoN, you click game list, pick game. When chat and all the other features for B.Net 2.0 goes live, it'll be significantly more sophisticated than HoNs. I'm not saying it's going to be crappier, but I imagine the beta for Starcraft 2, which is expected to have around 10,000 people, is going to get a lower priority than Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, and Starcraft 1.

There's always been laggers in every Blizzard game. Have you played Warcraft 3? Or Starcraft 1? They get their 60 seconds to stabilize their connection, or they drop.

Blizzard caters to people with less than perfect connections and non-top of the line computers? The Monsters.


Kid, your posts lack a decent though process. Retardation? What a joke. Why would you argue against reconnection, yeah they are at a serious disadvantage, great. I would take a disadvantage over a loss any day, you said yourself LIKELY lead to a loss well what if it doesn't.

What are you even talking about? WC3 servers are almost equivalent to the SC2 ones at the moment, that is what worries me. And as I've said earlier, many times, is that there are games when players are lagging and freezing the game for about 2 seconds every 10 seconds, and their disconnect timer doesn't even start counting.

Um, considering that everyone who isn't lagging gets the shaft? Yeah it is pretty stupid. Wonder why competitive WC3 and SC games are never played on the bnet servers? Honestly kid, think a little bit before you post your blizz fan mail.

[Nerosky]

Does any competitive SC matches get played on the normal battle.net? No Its played on Iccup with people from all over the world not just US West or whichever you pick, and there is alot less lag on Iccup playing with people from russia than on normal battle.net with people in the state next to me in the US. Then there is Garena and several other ways of playing SC or WC3 in much less laggier games that you can use instead of the normal battle.net. I would much rather play sc2 on battle.net 2.0 but if it runs with less lag on Garena or some others Id probably use those over battle.net, which would be a shame after they put in so much new content on bnet 2.0.

[Gemini]

Starcraft 2 isn't pay to play either? And if HoN had 100k people they would be able to buy a lot more servers than they have now. Your point is moot. And your comment about dedicated servers is lol. So you think SC2 is hosted on...listen servers? Do you're research before you pretend like you know what your talking about.

Ok so they have 100k people. Last I checked servers require maintenance and power. I wonder how long their money will last if people don't pay more. Companies can run out of money fast if they spend too much maintaining hardware.

Obviously there's more to the sc2 servers than just listening for connections. A nice hefty database for custom maps is one big thing you don't see HoN worrying about. Again the amount of traffic for sc2 is higher than HoN. That is significant for servers. My point isn't moot because you don't like it or because you don't understand why Blizzard chooses its system.

How long has Blizzard been using a free online play server model? A good decade? How long has HoN been around? I think Blizzard understands servers a little better than most people give them credit for.

[Zentoph]

Kid, your posts lack a decent though process. Retardation? What a joke. Why would you argue against reconnection, yeah they are at a serious disadvantage, great. I would take a disadvantage over a loss any day, you said yourself LIKELY lead to a loss well what if it doesn't.

What are you even talking about? WC3 servers are almost equivalent to the SC2 ones at the moment, that is what worries me. And as I've said earlier, many times, is that there are games when players are lagging and freezing the game for about 2 seconds every 10 seconds, and their disconnect timer doesn't even start counting.

Um, considering that everyone who isn't lagging gets the shaft? Yeah it is pretty stupid. Wonder why competitive WC3 and SC games are never played on the bnet servers? Honestly kid, think a little bit before you post your blizz fan mail.

All I see you using to support your arguments are personal attacks. Try something better, kid. Your logic sucks and I shouldn't even be bumping this ridiculous thread with its zero points made but you're such a raging douchebag that I couldn't help it. (Also, whenever someone on the internet is wrong/invincibly ignorant, I MUST CORRECT IT.)

Edit: Think about the points YOU'RE trying to make again. What if the auto-reconnect feature is there to prevent exploiting? Think about how many infinite advantages Blizzard has in their decade+ of running battle.net and now also think how you are arguing about a FREE BETA VERSION of the new battle.net2. How can anyone try to make an academic juxtaposition and claim they have "worries" about how it will turn out. Christ, you're bad.

[Peenchpeench]

All I see you using to support your arguments are personal attacks. Try something better, kid. Your logic sucks and I shouldn't even be bumping this ridiculous thread with its zero points made but you're such a raging douchebag that I couldn't help it. (Also, whenever someone on the internet is wrong/invincibly ignorant, I MUST CORRECT IT.)

Not only are you making illegitimate claims about me making personal attacks. You present you argument against anything I have said. Extremely unsatisfying.

[Raz]

First of all, they have a hard 250ms lag in the game.

2nd of all, they already said in the faq that they were looking into bringing it down because it doesn't seem necessary anymore with everyone on higher speed than a few years ago.

Also, HON is not their first game. Savage was a pretty good RTS-FPS hybrid. Savage 2 wasn't really good though.

[Zentoph]

Not only are you making illegitimate claims about me making personal attacks. You present you argument against anything I have said. Extremely unsatisfying.

There are two direct personal attacks, at least one indirect personal attack, and your entire quoted post reeks of an arrogant air. I'd call you a troll but your entirely too pretentious to be kidding. that's a lol.

edit: I'm not coming back to this thread again. Also, I need to stop editing. byebye

[Peenchpeench]

There are two direct personal attacks, at least one indirect personal attack, and your entire quoted post reeks of an arrogant air. I'd call you a troll but your entirely too pretentious to be kidding. that's a lol.

edit: I'm not coming back to this thread again. Also, I need to stop editing. byebye

Good, don't come back, because not only are you turning this into a personal attack thread by your posts (which consist of entirely personal attacks), you still have not presented any arguments. You keep saying my logic sucks yet you have no reasoning, absolute fail.

[Peenchpeench]

First of all, they have a hard 250ms lag in the game.

2nd of all, they already said in the faq that they were looking into bringing it down because it doesn't seem necessary anymore with everyone on higher speed than a few years ago.

Also, HON is not their first game. Savage was a pretty good RTS-FPS hybrid. Savage 2 wasn't really good though.

Well that will defenitely help, but I'm honestly more annoyed by the fact that one lagger has the potential to ruin the entire game.

[Lghtningwolf]

A skilled player will at least be able to produce units from his partners base and control their armies until he gets back, which obviously you are not. And saying that HoN's client is more basic is absolutely dumbfounding me. So blizzard is going with more sophisticated crappier servers? Makes a lot of sense buddy. And your little scout comment was funny, it has a lot to do with the point I'm making.

have you EVER played with shared units on in the current beta? you CAN NOT produce units from your allys base, PERIOD. meaning you CAN NOT have your ally sit there and produce things for you. shared ally allows you to move and control their units, but not use their resources to produce any new units. Thus your arguements are false and retarded.

As for how the servers react, they are p2p, they always have been. Why do you think that battle.net has NEVER had any real advertisements from other companies on it? because battle.net works around a p2p system, building the gameplay from one computer to the other, not needing a dedicated server to play it. hence, the lag you experience is only the lag between your computer and your opponents.

If blizzard were to set up dedicated servers for SC2, SC2 would end up being a pay to play game like WoW is. why? because dedicated servers cost money to keep up.

Battle.net is not a server like HoN uses, but a gateway, mearly a connector to other computers for the games you have installed.

[Peenchpeench]

have you EVER played with shared units on in the current beta? you CAN NOT produce units from your allys base, PERIOD. meaning you CAN NOT have your ally sit there and produce things for you. shared ally allows you to move and control their units, but not use their resources to produce any new units. Thus your arguements are false and retarded.

As for how the servers react, they are p2p, they always have been. Why do you think that battle.net has NEVER had any real advertisements from other companies on it? because battle.net works around a p2p system, building the gameplay from one computer to the other, not needing a dedicated server to play it. hence, the lag you experience is only the lag between your computer and your opponents.

If blizzard were to set up dedicated servers for SC2, SC2 would end up being a pay to play game like WoW is. why? because dedicated servers cost money to keep up.

Battle.net is not a server like HoN uses, but a gateway, mearly a connector to other computers for the games you have installed.

The whole point is that I'm saying you should be able to, when your parter disconnects and until he reconnects, or gets dropped after the alloted time. How are you calling something I think should be implemented false? That doesn't even make sense.

Okay, I understand where your coming from, but thats why I'm saying blizz either needs to think of a new technology or accept the fact that competitive matches will never be played from their server, or gateway, or whatever it is. And all this time "improving" battle.net did what again?

[Colrath]

The whole point is that I'm saying you should be able to, when your parter disconnects and until he reconnects, or gets dropped after the alloted time. How are you calling something I think should be implemented false? That doesn't even make sense.

Okay, I understand where your coming from, but thats why I'm saying blizz either needs to think of a new technology or accept the fact that competitive matches will never be played from their server, or gateway, or whatever it is. And all this time "improving" battle.net did what again?

If your partner disconnects, accept the loss. This game is too fast pace tor that.

Don't go around blaming Blizzard because your friend has crappy internet. Most of the slow downs in a game is actually caused by graphics settings set too high. If you find yourself seeing that little, "You're slowing the game down warning" or see a drop in FPS, lower your settings.

[Peenchpeench]

If your partner disconnects, accept the loss. This game is too fast pace tor that.

Don't go around blaming Blizzard because your friend has crappy internet. Most of the slow downs in a game is actually caused by graphics settings set too high. If you find yourself seeing that little, "You're slowing the game down warning" or see a drop in FPS, lower your settings.

Theres no reason why they shouldn't add a reconnect system. If anything the game will stay as is, in some cases though it will improve it.

Thats a pretty ironic point, considering everyone's been saying that Blizzard caters to people with bad internet. The point is that laggers lag everyone else, not just themselves. And for that I blame blizzard's server system. I'm not talking about graphics lag either, just internet lag.

[Unsuspected]

If your partner disconnects, accept the loss. This game is too fast pace tor that.


In WC3 and SC2, I've won many games where my partner DC'ed. BTW, when your partner disconnects, you can make units from their buildings (it's not the same as the shared unit control feature).

The arguing in this thread has become extremely unruly and uncivilized. HoN is a very different type of game with a much smaller player base, so comparing their network code with BNet's is silly. While I think features such as reconnecting after a DC in a 2v2+ and other such things would be very cool, I am aware that there probably exists reasons for why they did not do those things. I am certain that Blizzard hires some of the best network engineers who obviously know what they're doing and have their reasons for doing things the way they do.

[Zachet]

There's a difference between HoN "Beta" and Starcraft 2 "Beta". HoN has been and will be in Beta much much longer, sort of how google still calls 90% of its products in beta. This is primary believed to be a money issue at the moment (As that is what S2 stated). Starcraft 2 is going to be released in a very short period and has only recently entered public beta. They already announced that they're doing a very large server upgrade shortly, they are most likely working on finishing touches for the awesome servers to be setup and the finishing of the design for the Battle.net 2.0 servers, remember battle.net 2.0 is still under construction which was the whole delay in Starcraft in the first place.

You're playing a public beta for testing the game, not for testing the servers.

[Vorador]

have you EVER played with shared units on in the current beta? you CAN NOT produce units from your allys base, PERIOD. meaning you CAN NOT have your ally sit there and produce things for you. shared ally allows you to move and control their units, but not use their resources to produce any new units. Thus your arguements are false and retarded.

As for how the servers react, they are p2p, they always have been. Why do you think that battle.net has NEVER had any real advertisements from other companies on it? because battle.net works around a p2p system, building the gameplay from one computer to the other, not needing a dedicated server to play it. hence, the lag you experience is only the lag between your computer and your opponents.

If blizzard were to set up dedicated servers for SC2, SC2 would end up being a pay to play game like WoW is. why? because dedicated servers cost money to keep up.

Battle.net is not a server like HoN uses, but a gateway, mearly a connector to other computers for the games you have installed.

Lots of fud posts being spread in this thread like the one above by Lghtningwolf.lghtningwolf and others by Gemini.eclipse. Both of these guys are probably teenagers with zero experience programming anything beyond "echo hello world" but they clearly claim to be experts on the topic of company server platforms and advanced networking architecture. Stop spouting what Blizzard can and cannot do when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

User base is 100% irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a game has 100k players or 1 million. More dedicated servers can always be added on to support demand. If S2 games can afford to run dedicated servers for a one-time fee of $30 dollars (cost of the game) per user then Blizzard can CERTAINLY do the same for $50 or $60 per user. Furthermore, we're all going to be bent over for an additional $30 or $40 for each of the two expansions down the road. This is all fact, not opinion.

But none of that matters. Battle.net 2.0 will not be changed from the inferior peer to peer system it is now to a dedicated server platform this late in the development cycle. They plan on releasing the game in 3 months time. What Blizzard can do, however, is make one simple change. Reduce the 250ms delay to something much lower such as 50ms. Then all the hardcore players won't have to rely on 3rd party programs such as LC to get a decent game in. The last Blizzard interview done on Twitter (stickied) confirms that they are looking into doing just that so all we can do is wait around and hope they follow through with it.

[Lazz]

Oh, and comparing the way a game like HoN, which isn't exactly an RTS, more of an Over the Head RPG, to a game like Starcraft, which if you DC for a minute or two, your base would be half wiped out and you would lose regardless, is freaking retarded.

So, HoN QQers - stop being retarded. Thanks.

Actually, HoN is an RTS game... in fact, HoN is a DotA clone, which exists in forms in WC3 and SC1... it's actually exactly the same.

The point is about having servers that are more tolerant of disconnection. If you have a five second hiccup in your connection, you should be able to reconnect (like in HoN) and not totally disconnect (like in SC2).

[Gemini]

Actually, HoN is an RTS game... in fact, HoN is a DotA clone, which exists in forms in WC3 and SC1... it's actually exactly the same.

The point is about having servers that are more tolerant of disconnection. If you have a five second hiccup in your connection, you should be able to reconnect (like in HoN) and not totally disconnect (like in SC2).

It's a different genre born from Wc3 really. AoS was one of the first ones. It isn't a real time strategy. Usually they have more than one unit.

I thought there was a 60 second countdown to dc for sc2. Which can't really address a desync issue. For that you'd likely have to pause the game, and let the desynced player reload all the data.

[Bilco]

I am sorry you don't understand the requirements for networking an RTS game that can potentially have millions of users.
pretty sure you don't either so stfu


I'd be willing to bet that a month after release, battle.net 2 will be handling its millions of users far better than HoN will be handling even 100,000. Blizzard has been doing this for a long time, they know what they are doing.. But for the sake of you being a whiny little crybaby, maybe blizzard doesn't know how to resolve this issue at the moment, that's why they are allowing you to play their game for free.. BETA. The game is in beta, and so is battle.net 2.0

cept for they do not and never did with bnet 1.0... There's a reason why 3rd party programs such as LC were developed and 99% of the players worth a salt gave up on bnet and went to iccup.

[Gemini]

No I don't know what it takes to make that kind of server. But Blizzard does. And they are the ones making it. Let them do their job instead of insulting the company that made a sport in Korea, that hosts the most successful mmorpg to date, that created the game that gave birth to the AoS genre, that has been running a free online service for over a decade.

I think Blizzard knows what they are doing.


You will also never see anyone with a ping lower than 80 in those LC games, the rest get booted. Blizzard makes games for many people. That's why they put the built in latency.

[Joneleth]

OP's a moron for being too stupid to know that SC2 isn't played Client-Server but Peer-to-Peer.

[Bilco]

No I don't know what it takes to make that kind of server. But Blizzard does. And they are the ones making it. Let them do their job instead of insulting the company that made a sport in Korea, that hosts the most successful mmorpg to date, that created the game that gave birth to the AoS genre, that has been running a free online service for over a decade.

I think Blizzard knows what they are doing.


You will also never see anyone with a ping lower than 80 in those LC games, the rest get booted. Blizzard makes games for many people. That's why they put the built in latency.

Hey and guess what, you won't be seeing that #@@* over there because THEY DON'T USE BNET IN THEIR KOREAN TOURNIES AND THERE IS NO LAN IN SC2 ATM LOLOLOLOL. Don't be a stereotypical, hypocritical fanatic and realize legitimate laments =/= flaming.

[Gemini]

Hey and guess what, blah blah blah.

There's a huge difference between calling servers a joke, and not being happy with them. Constructive criticism vs non constructive. The OP is not very constructive. Borderline insulting attitude to the company hosting the beta.

[Mut]

If everyone in the game has a good connection, then the delay is around .4-.5 seconds. But if there is even one lagger it creates a lot more delay. You obviously haven't played with someone who lags yet. I dread the thought of 4v4 with this system as well.

I'm not sure which pacific island you live on, but i have yet to see a game with a .4+ second delay. I'm generally right on the forced delay of ~.25.

And for the love of god, beta servers are not production servers. The sheer amount of informational logging that is possibly enabled on a beta or dev server vs a production server could cause a noticable delay, let alone hardware differences, network differences, software differences, so on and so forth. It's called beta for a reason.

The differences in HoN server architecture and sc2 server architecture has been touched on in a dozen threads, go look one up if you want to know why they act differently, i'll give you a quick spoiler: it's not because one company doesn't know what they are doing, it comes down to the desired goal for the gameplay.

[Airyina]

The problem is that consistent lagging DOESN'T get them kicked out. You can lag for and freeze the game for 2 seconds every 10 seconds, without the disconnect timer even opening. Yeah okay, blizzard is making their servers lag horribly when others are lagging on purpose, this makes total sense.

If the disconnect window doesn't come up, that means it's YOU lagging, not the other. It takes less than a second for the window to come up if someone else is lagging.

[Kat]

Yeah, i'm SURE you get 0ms of latency in HoN...

What kind of world are you living in? Even LAN connections have a few (1-5) ms of latency...

--

So far i haven't had any issues with lag or disconnects.

Compared to battle.net where i couldn't host games nor could i join 90% of the games without doing the "lat trick".

[Treasy]

I've never experienced a 1-1.5 second delay on bnet 2.0. .5 at maximum.

I also love the hell out of the matchmaking system.

Oh, and DOTA > HoN

:)

[Hoser]

Woot, HoN for the win! =D

Yeah, HoN servers deal with other player's lag, as well as yours, very well.

A reconnect feature would be nice in SC2, but who knows if they will read this thread since it mostly seems about raging players.

[Gearvosh]

OP doesn't seem to understand the basics of networking or how it works:

- Blizzard uses a form of P2P networking, not purely dedicated like HoNs
- Blizzard throws up the lag prompt when someones lagging, so that IT CREATES AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD so that the non-lagger can't go in and win while other player can't react
- The latency is also in place to balance it out between users

[Fohobogah]

Hmm, it's funny how you guys are having a conversation about an issue that blizzard has already made statement on... The game has 250 ms lag built in, so everyone with moderate to good connection has the same feeling. They also saying they are lowering it. And god, give em some time, B.net 2 is brand new. Only valid point i see is the reconnect option in team play. Now stop beating a dead dog, you're having connection issues, not me.