oopomopoo,

In my region I  get 1000+ easy and worst case it actually hit 3000+.

Yes it is Blizzard's game but at the end of the day, They don't have a game if we do not play the game.

Actually I don't want Blizzard to fail but stop using the old marketing scenario of trying to control everything and thats why it is located in USA in terms of servers. Only reason they put servers in China was because 5 million plus chinese is a lot to lose if they are complaining about lag.

Interesting that WoW have always gone after gold selling accounts, but have not banned a lot of people in China who actually collect the game and sell it to the merchants.

Note: Lag is due to number of issues but you will not see much lag if you located in USA and have a decent broadband service, good network card and decent amount of RAM.

I ran MACPRO with 8Gb memory quad version 2.8Ghz and 30" screen. My lag is all to due to server location.

Btw just curious, what is your latency where you currently live? (India, correct?)

I play with roughly 200-300, in Texas. I just want to know what type of latency difference we are actually dealing with, as that is the most stated problem with no lan.

Soul, i try not to put people down. However if they have no will to even accept my view, why should i? For example, llama understood, as i understood him. I treated him with respect.

I know that major piracy doesn't occur due to LaN, but it is still piracy none the less.  I do understand that this is not excellent news, as I enjoyed playing LaN with my family (As i said in another post.) Hopefully they do add more servers around the globe, but until then there is not much to do. This is Blizzards game, they can create it however they want.

By the way, dont get the wrong idea. I do actually want LaN in the game, but i understand why Blizzard is not putting it in. I also agreed with Naxeem, except for the Blizzard turning into EA.

At least be glad they announced they were not adding LaN. I can tell you quite a few games that did not.

oopomopoo,

I had the chance of living in Europe, USA, Singapore Australia now India. I understand a lot of people's issue with SCII not having LAN support and if you read the comments slowly and understand the reaction, you will understand the fuss.  BTW MAJOR piracy does not occur due to LAN support being available, not sure where you got that information from but  it is wrong in my experience and opinion.

IF we go by Blizzard experience with WoW were the only servers in region are China, since there have 5.5 million players, then I very much doubt Blizzard will spend any money on regionalization of servers. It will be like WoW, Oceanic server sitting in USA!!

Read Naxeem message because he is correct in his comments.

Btw I live in second most populated country in the world and Blizzard has not ever tried to give us a server or sold its game. So don't tell us to hope.

Lastly stop putting people down, since everyone is allowed their opinion, be more constructive in your feedback. Just my opinion of you.

Soul

Ok llama, i see your point and agree with it 100%. And sorry about the bot misinterpretation, thought you meant spam bots in channels. ;)

Airddragon... I dont remember reading where you have to be loggin in just like steam. Besides, does it really matter? a good game is a good game. Quit crying because ONE feature you will use on rare occasions is not in the game. What do you have against having to log in to play a game? Do you hate MMOs? They require you to log in. Do you hate Xbox and PS3 games? They have achievements (Which is the main reason they require you to log in.)

What? What is it that makes having to log in such a bad thing? And keep in mind you will not have to log in to play SC2.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm blown away by this, but it definitely snatched a double take. Blizzard had and still has the gaming market by the jewels in popular games; Diablo, WC, SC, WoW, they can do whatever they want.

I stated it before and I think I need to state it again.

How is this different then requiring you to log on and send a message to the server to play?

Here let me help you with that answer.  It isn't.  This is the same crap as the Spore DRM all prettied up and packaged to look cleaner.  Its still a dirty policy and Blizzard knows there are better ways to prevent piracy.  Make downloadable buyable content that is worth it is one.

I didn't buy Spore and I will not be buying this PoS because of this.  Period.  If Blizzard does the same thing with D3 I will also not buy it.  If I wanted to buy a game and have to log in for it each time I would go buy some steam games.  And at least most of those still allow/have LAN.

I don't know why, but some here are missing several critical facts:

- forcing B.net will not stop piracy:

 - piracy is mostly used for singleplayer as multiplayer players usually buy

 - there is 0 to none chance Blizzard will prevent B.net server simulators that will be available very soon after the release

 - believe it or not, but RTS games are played where no Internet connection is available too. LAN parties are one of the most successfull nerd summer fun in my country, not mentioning islands with no phone (only electricity available), student apartments with no Internet etc.

Blizzard is doing this because they can: their arrogancy since world of cash has reached heights not even God has seen.

Blizzard is slowly becomming what EA is and there is no way out.

I understand what you are saying oopo, but I also think that players are very justified in their fuss, seeing as LAN is much more largely used than you think. The fact is that people are angry that they DO have to put up with lag just for the sake of playing with someone sitting next to them.

You compared removing clans from games to LAN in your post, which I think sums this whole thing up very nicely. They could be compared if, for example, Blizzard removed clans from Starcraft II simply because the matchmaking system would connect them to players with similar skill, thus removing the need for people to play with their friends. Such a thing would be highly unnecessary and would provoke a similar reaction from paying customers.

While multiple users playing a single copy of a game is a grey area in terms of licensing, it is not strictly piracy. Games such as Spore would not have allowed players to create more than one account per game if such was the case. Piracy would be if you illegally downloaded Starcraft to play with your mum and bro, which in my personal opinion will not be stamped out if LAN is removed.

I also think you misunderstood what I said about bots. I was referring to the single player AI, which is hardly negative.  

Sorry about all the text, I have a bit too much time on my hands right now so I thought I would word it out a bit =P

llama, i am not truely defending blizzard. I am simply stating that people are making far too much fuss about this. Should they cut the price due to a few thousand people (out of roughly 400 thousand, estimating of course) not being happy they have to play with a bit more lag to play with their friend?

And bots affected gameplay in a negative way, so you cannot compare bots to lan.

The upside is that people will need to buy more than one copy of the game. Currently with lan, i am able to use my one SC CD to play with my mom and bro. This is one of the piracy things blizzard is talking about.

What i would compare to lan, would be taking out clans / guilds / whatever you want to call it, or something of that nature. They do not actually affect gameplay, but people enjoy being in one.

PS - As I stated above, i do play lan when bored with my family. However it will not affect my decision to buy SC2 in the slightest.

It stuns me that people are defending Blizzard's decision to take away features in a game they will most likely buy.

Playing with bots didn't make Starcraft either, but would you still be defending them if they took that out?

And will the price be changed now that the game does contain less features? No. As SCGroot said we will probably be paying extra later.

So where is the upside to this decision?

One thing i would like to point out. :)

But i agree that is sucks having to play with that lat with the guy next to you. Hopefully blizzard will add more regions to B.Net to make up for this.

What about latency? Why do I have to play with 250+ ms latency with the guys or girls in my same room?

Orisaie, i see your point. But one thing i would like to point out, that if you use the internet only for SC2, then there is a VERY small chance you will be subject to malware and viruses, due to blizzards built in anti hacking system. B.Net has never had an actual server problem, if i remember correctly.

Overplay the importance of the removal of the LAN feature*

Bleh! need to sleep ;p

As long as B.net will work properly I think most overplay the removal of the LAN feature.

Not everyone lives in the US or Europe. Some of us have to play with 250+ ms latency or even worse. Being forced to play on the Internets (being exposed to malware, network issues, server shutdowns, and a big list of etcs) with a friend IN THE SAME FRIGGIN' ROOM is just STUPID.

www.worldofraids.com/.../13832554353-we-going-to-have-to-pay-for-diablo-3online.html

Is my source btw, you can also go to the actual forum, but this shows the blue posts only. To continue a bit, Bashiok says "One pay-for idea that specifically relates to Diablo that I thought was kind of interesting was the chance to resurrect a fallen hardcore character. "

- So it may not be pay per month.

Oh, good news and bad news.

Quote from: Bashiok (Source)

Mike mentioned it in an Activision Blizzard investor meeting [paraphrased] "A player that buys Starcraft 2 at retail will have the ability to play on Battle.net with no additional fee."

I'll point out that this is a very carefully worded statement.

In otherwords, there could very well be a free for B.net. However, if you but SC2, you will not have to pay for B.net.

I believe it is worded carefully because D3 may require you to pay. (I do believe that if you have SC2, you will not need to pay for D3.

Lan play did NOT make starcraft. Blizzard made starcraft. The campaign made starcraft. Battle.Net made starcraft. The lan that allowed you to play with only people relatively close to you, did NOT make starcraft.

Cry all you want, point is that LaN was not necessary, if you do want it that bad just hop on B.Net and play together in a private game.

Btw i am sad that there is no lan as well, but youall act like this is the end of the world. Just like how blizzard stated SC2 was going to be 3 games instead of 1. Wow, what if WoW was like that? Oh wait. It is.