|
|
On June 23 2016 06:30 Wrath wrote:
@tec
Is utilizing the default battle.net interface within the game something you can consider in the future post-release?
I'm just curious - why would this be necessary? I understand that you might be more familiar with that UI but I find the current UI to be smooth and pleasant.
It would be interesting if you could have "skins" for Shield Battery though - like how Reddit has a "night theme" on mobile or whatnot. That would be where you could implement the classic UI 
|
1. So will be able to host without port forwarding? Are they even testing that? I mean they beta invited some safe people who probably have already port forwarded so are they really even testing it..
Being able to host/join games will the biggest thing for getting people to come play SC BW
2. I'm sort of the in the camp that I hope they eventually have the option to have the old US East/West/etc battle.net server interface art style with all those giant metallic buttons/sound effects when click buttons. I've attached to that aesthetic and art style. Shoot me 
|
On June 23 2016 07:12 cncbmb wrote:1. So will be able to host without port forwarding? Are they even testing that? I mean they beta invited some safe people who probably have already port forwarded so are they really even testing it.. Being able to host/join games will the biggest thing for getting people to come play SC BW 2. I'm sort of the in the camp that I hope they eventually have the option to have the old US East/West/etc battle.net server interface art style with all those giant metallic buttons/sound effects when click buttons. I've attached to that aesthetic and art style. Shoot me
1. You can host/join with no port forwarding right now. I strongly doubt they just included "safe" people. I play in multiple locations based on my job/living situation and most of those places don't have port forwarding, especially not for the work laptop I've been using. They have all performed flawlessly, barring any personal lag issues.
2. As I said, I can understand that, but I don't think it should be a dev priority. If skins were to be implemented I do think that would be really cool though!
|
On June 23 2016 06:36 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:30 Wrath wrote:
@tec
Is utilizing the default battle.net interface within the game something you can consider in the future post-release? I'm just curious - why would this be necessary? I understand that you might be more familiar with that UI but I find the current UI to be smooth and pleasant. It would be interesting if you could have "skins" for Shield Battery though - like how Reddit has a "night theme" on mobile or whatnot. That would be where you could implement the classic UI
I don't want to use browser to play.
|
On June 23 2016 09:21 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:36 Jealous wrote:On June 23 2016 06:30 Wrath wrote:
@tec
Is utilizing the default battle.net interface within the game something you can consider in the future post-release? I'm just curious - why would this be necessary? I understand that you might be more familiar with that UI but I find the current UI to be smooth and pleasant. It would be interesting if you could have "skins" for Shield Battery though - like how Reddit has a "night theme" on mobile or whatnot. That would be where you could implement the classic UI I don't want to use browser to play.
Oh you mean a stand-alone client? I heard someone mention that earlier in the thread...
|
On June 23 2016 09:21 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:36 Jealous wrote:On June 23 2016 06:30 Wrath wrote:
@tec
Is utilizing the default battle.net interface within the game something you can consider in the future post-release? I'm just curious - why would this be necessary? I understand that you might be more familiar with that UI but I find the current UI to be smooth and pleasant. It would be interesting if you could have "skins" for Shield Battery though - like how Reddit has a "night theme" on mobile or whatnot. That would be where you could implement the classic UI I don't want to use browser to play.
Theoretically, the end result could be wrapped in electron (https://github.com/electron/electron) and still be a standalone player while retaining the build structure. Hell, Slack is built with it and it works great. Don't think it would be much of a stretch depending on how the communication between frontend and backend is handled atm.
|
Johto4964 Posts
On June 23 2016 10:39 andiCR wrote:
Hell, Slack is built with it and it works great.
...and casually eats a ridiculous 1.5 Gigabyte RAM. I wouldn't call that great...
|
On June 23 2016 07:14 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 07:12 cncbmb wrote:1. So will be able to host without port forwarding? Are they even testing that? I mean they beta invited some safe people who probably have already port forwarded so are they really even testing it.. Being able to host/join games will the biggest thing for getting people to come play SC BW 2. I'm sort of the in the camp that I hope they eventually have the option to have the old US East/West/etc battle.net server interface art style with all those giant metallic buttons/sound effects when click buttons. I've attached to that aesthetic and art style. Shoot me 1. You can host/join with no port forwarding right now. I strongly doubt they just included "safe" people. I play in multiple locations based on my job/living situation and most of those places don't have port forwarding, especially not for the work laptop I've been using. They have all performed flawlessly, barring any personal lag issues. 2. As I said, I can understand that, but I don't think it should be a dev priority. If skins were to be implemented I do think that would be really cool though!
Well for 1,
Some locations I can host / join game without portforwarding and some locations I have to not sure the reason.
Unrelated to the above, will there be custom game hosting bots support? There are plenty of people on US BW east who can't host
|
On June 23 2016 21:57 cncbmb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 07:14 Jealous wrote:On June 23 2016 07:12 cncbmb wrote:1. So will be able to host without port forwarding? Are they even testing that? I mean they beta invited some safe people who probably have already port forwarded so are they really even testing it.. Being able to host/join games will the biggest thing for getting people to come play SC BW 2. I'm sort of the in the camp that I hope they eventually have the option to have the old US East/West/etc battle.net server interface art style with all those giant metallic buttons/sound effects when click buttons. I've attached to that aesthetic and art style. Shoot me 1. You can host/join with no port forwarding right now. I strongly doubt they just included "safe" people. I play in multiple locations based on my job/living situation and most of those places don't have port forwarding, especially not for the work laptop I've been using. They have all performed flawlessly, barring any personal lag issues. 2. As I said, I can understand that, but I don't think it should be a dev priority. If skins were to be implemented I do think that would be really cool though! Well for 1, Some locations I can host / join game without portforwarding and some locations I have to not sure the reason. Unrelated to the above, will there be custom game hosting bots support? There are plenty of people on US BW east who can't host
I assume you've reported that strange variance in detail?
|
On June 23 2016 10:20 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 09:21 Wrath wrote:On June 23 2016 06:36 Jealous wrote:On June 23 2016 06:30 Wrath wrote:
@tec
Is utilizing the default battle.net interface within the game something you can consider in the future post-release? I'm just curious - why would this be necessary? I understand that you might be more familiar with that UI but I find the current UI to be smooth and pleasant. It would be interesting if you could have "skins" for Shield Battery though - like how Reddit has a "night theme" on mobile or whatnot. That would be where you could implement the classic UI I don't want to use browser to play. Oh you mean a stand-alone client? I heard someone mention that earlier in the thread...
I want the stand-alone client to be the default battle.net interface provided with the game
|
Canada11388 Posts
|
Hyrule19189 Posts
|
|
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
|
Watching
|
Looks like time for me to try out bw again
|
How is the project going?
|
It's going very well - the first wave of invites for expanded small-scale testing have gone out, and adjustments are being made to the client so that it works better. Presumably, once Tec and 2pac feel good about where it is for this group of people, they'll send out even more invites.
|
On June 26 2016 13:57 Qntc.YuMe wrote:Looks like time for me to try out bw again
Welcome back! ![[image loading]](http://s9.postimg.org/o34gf1upr/yume_tanks.jpg)
|
On June 27 2016 01:57 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 13:57 Qntc.YuMe wrote:Looks like time for me to try out bw again Welcome back!
Remember this and it was awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
