EPTSlashdot interviews blizzard - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On August 25 2009 14:56 x89titan wrote: maybe he never got invited to a lan party and this will be his revenge. Seriously. I play DOTA through LAN more often than not. | ||
|
Sharp-eYe
Canada642 Posts
Second, can they not just do what steam does? It is fairly clear they want to make a platform similar to steam/XBox live. Both services allow lan play through their service. For example, steam allows you to sign in an offline mode, and then you can only see games on your LAN. This is great because you do not require internet connection, while Valve knows you are using a legal copy as the steam accounts only take legal cd keys. Rob Pardo is a little irritating. Maybe he has never heard of Dreamhack? | ||
|
onmach
United States1241 Posts
| ||
|
uNiGNoRe
Germany1115 Posts
On August 26 2009 00:46 Zato-1 wrote: Seriously. I play DOTA through LAN more often than not. Me too. But I'm pretty sure that this would not be the case if we had B.net 2.0 already. | ||
|
sudo.era
United States300 Posts
On August 25 2009 13:27 lepape wrote: If I understood this part correctly, this is bad news. Very bad news. Not really. If it's like WOW, then you should be able to play in the regions of your choosing. And you don't have to create characters or anything so it's not like you're limited to a certain number of regions. What he's saying is that, for random play, you'll be playing within WOW-like region divisions. But they've also stated how easy it is to play with friends. I don't see any problems, limitations, or anything remotely "bad" here. | ||
|
Boundz(DarKo)
5311 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On August 25 2009 14:56 x89titan wrote: maybe he never got invited to a lan party and this will be his revenge. i already read lan wasn't gonna in sc2 and im trying to cope with it. C'mon now, I lived in the Philippines before moving here to the U.S. I don't think there's a single legit copy of any software in the entire country. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
wow, it pisses me off just reading his answer seriously, if he gave me that answer I would want to slap him. It's like the bullshit answers corrupt politicians give, I get the exact same feel from it | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On August 26 2009 04:50 Catch]22 wrote: who cares? not playing with australians means no lag for me, i never once felt sad about not being able to play wow on american servers, who cares, seriously. What if you want to play something that is not very popular (UMS or FFA), or you are simply playing in hours where there is few players from your region. What about tournaments or clans that have players from diferent regions? | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On August 26 2009 05:01 Polis wrote: What if you want to play something that is not very popular (UMS or FFA), or you are simply playing in hours where there is few players from your region. What about tournaments or clans that have players from diferent regions? what if koreans continue to dominate and you want to practice against them to improve? there are lots of situations where a player might want to play outside of just his neighborhood. | ||
|
zerotol
Belgium508 Posts
| ||
|
deL
Australia5540 Posts
On August 25 2009 13:42 lazz wrote: I dunno, the way it was worded made it seemed like there'd be more than the big 4 (asia, USwest/east and euro). like at least several servers few country. I hope that's not the case.. Yeah well I doubt we will be using an Aus server, we will be on Asia or something. Which kinda sucks in one way cos it's yet another game we will have to put up with 350+ ping on  | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On August 26 2009 01:03 Sharp-eYe wrote: First of all, can someone explain the point of Gateways in Battle.net? Is it because of server overload or something? I honestly never liked Gateways, because it seperates the community too much. the gateways were introduced in maybe 2001 or something (i don't remember the year), but before they changed things, on peak nights server splits would become pretty frequent, and it'd be almost impossible to chat in the channels. having no idea of the costs involved, i still think blizzard could definitely have 'one' gateway, but it must be cheaper to manage 4 smaller ones | ||
|
bLah.
Croatia497 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 08:25 bLah. wrote: gateways keep players in their regions allowing you to have normal ping in each game which is good enough reason for having gateways. The thing is, if games are handled peer-to-peer instead of client-server, this becomes irrelevant, because the gateways aren't in the equation at all. All that matters is the distance between the players and their connections, at which point, all gateways are doing is preventing you from playing people outside your region. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
That way you could technically have it in all lan houses and other shitz | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On August 26 2009 01:03 Sharp-eYe wrote: First of all, can someone explain the point of Gateways in Battle.net? Is it because of server overload or something? I honestly never liked Gateways, because it seperates the community too much. Second, can they not just do what steam does? It is fairly clear they want to make a platform similar to steam/XBox live. Both services allow lan play through their service. For example, steam allows you to sign in an offline mode, and then you can only see games on your LAN. This is great because you do not require internet connection, while Valve knows you are using a legal copy as the steam accounts only take legal cd keys. Rob Pardo is a little irritating. Maybe he has never heard of Dreamhack? Steam offline mode does not work that way. It's like 'appear offline' from live messenger. My mates play left4dead on my steam account all the time. They just set it to offline mode so people on my friends list don't try to chat with him or join the games he's in. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 26 2009 11:25 DeCoup wrote: Steam offline mode does not work that way. It's like 'appear offline' from live messenger. My mates play left4dead on my steam account all the time. They just set it to offline mode so people on my friends list don't try to chat with him or join the games he's in. No. There's offline mode in Friends, and then there's a separate Steam Offline mode for LANs. Steam > File > Go Offline > restart Steam. It wasn't in the original build of Steam though. Offline Mode allows you to play games through Steam without reconnecting to the Steam Network every time you wish to play - this is particularly useful if you do not plan on playing over the internet and would prefer not to download new updates for your single-player games. | ||
| ||
