You might be a game dev, but that doesn't make you the slightest bit smart on networking, as your statement proves.
When you make a connection to a server beyond your first hop (gateway), your connection is routed. If the server is on your LAN, the traffic isn't routed, it's switched.
Okay, sure you got me there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonjclark
In the case of BattleNet, you would be connecting to a "game hub", or a server off of your LAN (again, it's being routed past your first hop) so that your computer can make a connection to the server. What you seem to be missing is that the server is off-site! If they implemented LAN-play, then the server could be local, hence, you could simply switch the traffic. That's not the case here. They are saying that BattleNet will be the connection-point for finding games and there will be no true "server" component in the client(game), OTHERWISE LAN PLAY COULD AND WOULD EXIST!
So, let's say you fire up a three-player game and wait patiently for people to connect. Your server is listed on BattleNet and someone makes a connection from another network. Boom! Their connection is now not local and is being routed over the InterWebs, like you said. But, let's say your friend pops in with his LANparty computer and hooks up to your cheap-ass Linksys or Dlink router. Once he logs into BattleNet(there's your socket connection happening allowing two people behind one router to be connected to BNET at the same time) and finds your server and clicks connect, SPLAT! NO LAN PLAY! WHY? BECAUSE THERE'S NO SERVER COMPONENT IN THE GAME ALLOWING LOCAL TRAFFIC TO CONNECT TO YOUR LOCAL COMPUTER. THEREFORE THE TRAFFIC MUST BE ROUTED THROUGH BATTLENET AND IT'S OFFSITE SERVER.
Nah, of course there's a local server. That's my point. One of the local machines ends up playing as client&server (or you have an old-school style dedicated server) and BNet is just used to matchmake. Game traffic does NOT bounce through BNet, just matchmaking. THAT was my point. Bouncing all traffic through BNet would be expensive and unnecessary.
When they say LAN play isn't supported, all they mean is you can't establish a local LAN game without establishing the game via BNet which wasn't true in SC1. Like I said, this is the way pretty much all games work that use a matchmaking service be it Gamespy, XBox Live or whatever. So, yeah, admittedly I'm hardly an expert at online stuff (it's not my particular area) but I'm familiar enough with the basic workings.
EVERYONE who keeps saying that they will have to do extra work in order to implement LAN into starcraft is an idiot. What do you think every single one of the battle reports as well as the beta booths at blizzcon were all running? Some magical packet redirecting B.net 2.0? No sir. IT WAS LAN.
Its already in the game, they are actually going out of their way to REMOVE a feature. What a waste of time, going out of their way to fuck their customer base.
Nah, of course there's a local server. That's my point. One of the local machines ends up playing as client&server (or you have an old-school style dedicated server) and BNet is just used to matchmake. Game traffic does NOT bounce through BNet, just matchmaking. THAT was my point. Bouncing all traffic through BNet would be expensive and unnecessary.
When they say LAN play isn't supported, all they mean is you can't establish a local LAN game without establishing the game via BNet which wasn't true in SC1. Like I said, this is the way pretty much all games work that use a matchmaking service be it Gamespy, XBox Live or whatever. So, yeah, admittedly I'm hardly an expert at online stuff (it's not my particular area) but I'm familiar enough with the basic workings.
Okay, let's say your right. Now we have to ask ourselves how matchmaking is performed for local opponents.
Let's say that BNET matches me and you and we're local to eachother. BattleNet gathers my IP info which to BNET is "ISP.Address: Port = socket" {example: 92.64.56.124:5745}. This isn't MY LOCAL information, which would be "LAN.Address: Port = socket" {example: 192.168.1.1:5745}. So now BNET passes the info it has for me (again, my Internet Address, as it doesn't know my local information) to you and we connect. The problem is that your computer was passed my Internet Address, and not my local information. Therefore you only know how to connect to me from my internet information.
Want to test this? Do you have a router at home? If so:
START > RUN > type "cmd" and press Enter
In the command line box type "ipconfig" and press Enter
You'll see your TRUE IP ADDRESS which, if you don't mess around with too many things would be something like 192.168.1.100{Linksys} or 192.168.0.1{DLink}
Now, navigate to http://whatismyip.com. This site will tell you what your IP address is seen as from beyond your first hop (your router or gateway device), which is actually the WAN interface IP address assigned to your router. This is why routers act as a hardware firewall so naturally, as they mask your true, LOCAL IP address.
BATTLENET CAN ONLY SEE THE IP ADDRESS THAT WHATISMYIP.COM CAN SEE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INTERNET NODE, AND CAN THEREFORE ONLY PASS THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER CLIENTS FOR MATCHMAKING. THEREFORE, ANYONE YOU CONNECT TO FROM BNET MATCHMAKING SERVICES WILL BE CONNECTED TO BY USING THEIR ISP ADDRESS. That means that even if you're local, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO OUT TO YOUR ROUTER'S WAN INTERFACE AND BACK IN AGAIN TO CONNECT.
What's that? You don't have a router? Oh shit, now you're going to have to go out to your ISP's router and back again. So, are they telling me that in order for traffic to not leave my network I'll need a router? Hmmm, does that ship with the game? Also, a router would be REQUIRED for local player vs. player if this logic is true, as no LAN component exists.
What's that? You don't have a router? Oh shit, now you're going to have to go out to your ISP's router and back again. So, are they telling me that in order for traffic to not leave my network I'll need a router? Hmmm, does that ship with the game? Also, a router would be REQUIRED for local player vs. player if this logic is true, as no LAN component exists.
Ya dig?
I guess I don't, because so far as I understand, in your example wouldn't you still stay local to your router? After all, we're talking about LAN play, right? So, that means anyone on my local network, which at some point hits a router as all connections from my network resolve to the same IP, right? So, okay, worst case, my game traffic bounces off the local router before it makes it to my LAN-party friend. Is that a big deal? Is a big deal to assume that everyone on a LAN are on the same side of the internet connection?
Hell, even if I've got multiple IPs running out of my apt, they'll still get stopped from wandering out into the ether by the ISP which shouldn't be a big deal either. Regardless, I don't have to worry about bandwidth/latency for gameplay, which was the point of this whole discussion in the first place.
As to requiring a router for local play... that's kind of assumed anyway, as you need to hit Bnet to matchmake in the first place and there are multiple machines connected to the internet. Or are we talking stranger topologies?
Thanks Vacatakarat, you've obviously missed the entire point of my post.
My point was he didn't need to be a dick about it. In fact, he could've educated them right then and there and saved them the college dollars!
Sometimes people just want to tell people their stupid instead of enlightening them. That's a bad thing, IMO.
Considering the people that blindly believe the shit Blizzard-Activision will tell them and want the game to be a casual shitfest with stupid features implemented and good features removed, maybe they need to be told they're an idiot.
Having a large group go "Hurrrr we're gonna act like we know shit and lets let them remove good features and screw the consumer," it's hard to not take a step back and go "you're all idiots."
Basically, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
As to requiring a router for local play... that's kind of assumed anyway, as you need to hit Bnet to matchmake in the first place and there are multiple machines connected to the internet. Or are we talking stranger topologies?
No, you've hit it exactly right there. Blizzard in it's infinite wisdom has now forced me to own a router if I want to play two-player LAN, whereas before I could switch the traffic.
Again, it's not LAN if I'm forced to bounce packets off of my router's WAN interface, assuming I have one. If I don't own a router and I'm just using Internet Connection Sharing or something like that, then I'm forced to bounce my traffic of off my ISP's router.
Either way, for me to keep traffic somewhat local (it's leaving my LAN and hitting the first hop which is my gateway's WAN interface) I'm forced to own a router.
So, yes, to play "locally" you need a router, although the traffice does leave your LAN.
Again, it's not LAN if I'm forced to bounce packets off of my router's WAN interface, assuming I have one. If I don't own a router and I'm just using Internet Connection Sharing or something like that, then I'm forced to bounce my traffic of off my ISP's router.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ICS simply turn the host PC into a soft-router for the other computers? So, in that case, the game traffic should remain bouncing between the two PCs (or at least, off the host PC which serves as WAN adapter).
Anyway my point is that a LAN party should still be possible. Yeah, each person requires a copy of the game (yeah, that shouldn't be a shocker), and yeah, they all have to be on a connected network so they can see Bnet. But beyond that, everything should stay smooth and silky, at least in theory, which seemed to be freaking people out. And yeah, if you can't hit the intertubes at all... you're probably screwed. Otherwise it seems to me that people are really overreacting.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ICS simply turn the host PC into a soft-router for the other computers? So, in that case, the game traffic should remain bouncing between the two PCs (or at least, off the host PC which serves as WAN adapter).
Anyway my point is that a LAN party should still be possible. Yeah, each person requires a copy of the game (yeah, that shouldn't be a shocker), and yeah, they all have to be on a connected network so they can see Bnet. But beyond that, everything should stay smooth and silky, at least in theory, which seemed to be freaking people out. And yeah, if you can't hit the intertubes at all... you're probably screwed. Otherwise it seems to me that people are really overreacting.
Meh, close on the ICS. It mostly does NATing, with some DHCP and DNS forwards.
I can see your point though, but I hold true to disliking this dropped feature. To me, LAN has always been less of a hassle, more reliable, less cluttered and therefore quicker to find and connect to the game server. I think you should be able to get more than one install per license for your local computers as well. I mean, I have four computers in my house capable of running this game, and I'd like to get my sons and daughters involved, but hell if I'm paying 50-60$x5!
Ultimately, for those who prefer to game alone, yet 'connected' with their friends via the internet, this won't matter. For those of us who like human contact, have LAN parties once in a while and get absolutely shitfaced and play games together, this blows major chunks.
__________________
Gamertag: Scrambl3
R.I.P Xbox 360#1. 6/9/07
So you can understand how the problem affects others and would make it difficult or impossible for many people to play Starcraft 2 in a LAN environment with their friends and family. But since it doesn't directly affect you, not only is it not important to you, but you actively protest against LAN being included, and mock those who require it.
Basically, your argument is that you're just an asshole.
I've said this in other words before, but it comes up every time I see a discussion with gamers passionately advocating for publishers to remove features that benefit consumers.
It seems to me there is something fundamentally broken with the free market system when this occurs so regularly. Consumers, not just ignorant of what benefits consumers, but aware and passionately and vocally against consumers. Essentially you have the publishers acting completely in their own best interest, and consumers divided so heavily that some consumers take on most of the role of serving as public relations for the publisher.
We all know the only reason they said they removed lan play was to start a big storm about this get some free pr. Then they will have a change of heart and decide to add it back in... at the cost of delaying the game for a couple months.
__________________
Gamertag:Teh Super King
Currently Playing: Team Fortress 2, NHL 10, COD:MW2)
