Should the picture be switched from one with english text? --VirLudens 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think, yes. Btw, 192.168.178.25 - FritzBox? -xpeh- 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's originally a screenshot of my FritzBox MasterOfChaos 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
That part is not entirely true. Most Routers open the port if they detect outgoing traffic on that port. So the port will automatically open since both players try messaging each other. Probably doesn't work for some routers, which then causes this lag. MasterOfChaos 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What situation are you talking about? Host with closed port or 2 players with closed ports in 1 game?
1. I already thought of that. I think, the problem is following.
If some1 wants to join game, he sends a packet to host. If host don't get this packet, he don't send anything back - he don't know of existing of this client.
[someshit] If someone sends an UDP packet, a NAT router opens this port for incoming packets at least from ip:port this packet was sent to (in case of TCP there can be another problems like SPI). If another player now will send a packet to ip:port of first player, they should have bidirectional connection. RLY? [/someshit]
2. Starcraft game connection act as follows (i think :)). Let's assume, if some1 come into an existing game, he gets game ip:port list from host and tries to connect to it. But there is no standart, how the routers must act with packets from another's packet, who don't belong to existing connections. Some restricts it to same ip:port, some to same ip, some don't restrict it at all. It will only work with last type.
The same if we assume, both clients try to initiate connection to each other. If none of them belongs to last type, connection fails.
It would be really nice, if SC would reroute such clients through host. However, much bigger problem at my point is that all have game delay equal to biggest delay between 2 clients, unlike War3, in which only ping to host counts. I would give up any advantage given by star connection used by Starcraft only for this, just to be sure, if i and host dont lag - i will not have lags. Another problem of SC is that it is not even able to detect who lags. Even oblivion is not reliable, despite that fact, that it doesn't detect 2 closed port problem. Starcraft can't even properly detect presense of lags in game lobby - you should refresh slots or change your race to see if you have lags in a game.
Connection in Battle.Net games http://harpywar.com/?a=articles&b=1&c=0&d=27&lang=ru (look at images).
I'm too tired to explain it all properly.-xpeh- 06:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I opened ports 6112 to 6119 and still couldn't host. After a lot of googling, a found a forum that also stated that *sometimes* you need to open port 4000 as well. So I did, and magically I can now host.
Can anyone else vouch for this? Didn't save the link unfortunately.
Note: At my old apartments, 6112 to 6119 worked fine. And at this apartment it also worked fine until we switched ISP in February and got new modem/routers. DrZygote214 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2014 (KST)
- I always thought port 4000 was for DiabloII. Here is the official ports list from Blizzard support page.