You played one match of a highly anticipated online game on launch day and expected the servers to be flawless? I'll tell you they were pretty darn good; I got dropped once in 10+ hours. It was probably just bad luck; also if you didn't reboot after installation I would recommend it.
Even the best games with the most stable servers you will get dropped occassionally and you're not even willing to try logging in a second time after spending $60? I wish I could afford to have your standards
If they sell a multiplayer game without LAN support, the online experience should better be flawless. It was not.
Reading the SC2 forums we were not the only ones experiencing this.
My standards have been the same since I started playing multiplayer games in the early 90s using a serial cable between PCs: if the network fails, it was my own fault. That's the standard. I am not going to lower it in the 21st century.
no offense, OP, but something doesn't add up.
Your internet connection is laggy enough that you don't want to play starcraft II online, but you want to buy a game just like starcraft II, 1 day after release, that you can download over the internet?
I don't know anyone who has an Internet connection that offers the latency of a LAN. So, yes, my Internet connection is "laggy enough".
How exactly do you plan on getting rid of SC2 to begin with? It's sort of tied to you now, you know.
Shouldn't be a problem. I'll just disagree with the next update of licence terms and send the game back to Blizzard.
or are you just mad that the torrented version you downloaded doesn't work, and will never work with multiplayer because of the no-LAN thing?
Yes, if you disagree with someone, he is probably a criminal. That's very clever.
I have DSL Direct Basic service, which is the slowest possible DSL connection, at home, and I can play all of my online games with no problems at all.
So can I. But when I play a game against my flat mate who is sitting at the next table, the difference between LAN and Internet connection is very noticeable indeed, especially when the Battle.net server drops the connection.
I have to wait a LONG time for videos to buffer online, and hulu, for example, is almost unusable for me, but unless you're using satellite internet, there's no way your lag to any decent servers (IE Blizzard or Valve's servers) is worth mentioning.
I'm betting you're in a dorm and you found out after downloading a torrent that SC2 doesn't have LAN play.
Yes, that's much more likely that my stupid story about missing LAN support and the difference between LAN and Internet when it comes to real-time strategy games that (should) allow for micromanagement of units.
Perhaps, and that is a pure guess on my part, you are not a very good real-time strategy player and hence never noticed what a difference even marginally acceptable micromanagement makes and how much difference there is between low and high latency?
This.
I played on launch day in South-East Asia (which includes Korea!) and there were one or two drops and strange occurences, but considering that was the launch day of one of the most highly anticipated games of the decade ... on a new multiplayer platform ... I was pretty impressed.
Your standards must be pretty low.
Even in the early 90s when the network connection was a 9600 baud serial cable or modem I don't remember experiencing any drops that I couldn't explain with problems with my own hardware or expertise.
If they want to move everything to an Internet-based system they should make sure that they can compete with the experience I had almost 20 years ago. I won't adjust my standards to match their version of the 21st century.
You should take a look at Supreme Commander 2. Very similar with SC2
Thanks! I'll have a look.
Basically Mr. Kotick wants to make sure every person has to pay $60 for 1/3 of the game, register on battle.net 2.0 which restricts and cripples the map making community (that would be too "fun" for Mr. Kotick), remove LAN (basically crippling competitive play, which now requires Blizzard authorization to hold tournaments over Battle.net 2.0, plus Blizzard gets a cut of any revenue generated) and all this is shoved down our, the honest fan's, throat to combat "piracy."
That seems to be it exactly.
Of course, we have seen here that some people don't notice a difference between LAN and Internet and even think that anyone who would prefer a LAN over an Internet connection must have downloaded the game illegally. So perhaps Mr. Kotick's strategy will work out.
Incidentally, I enjoyed trying out community-made maps.
