Complain about the DRM, but don't complain about the lack of a meaningless and archaic "feature."
Maybe I misunderstood the press announcement. Will the only interaction with the internet be the authorization? If the actual game play is over the network and not to the battle.net servers and back, I don't have an issue with that. My only concern is having 4+ people on my poor internet connection.
My best estimation would be that you matchmake over the Internet then play by connecting to the host player's computer. It should be capable of working out when players are on the same network.
The big problem people really need to figure out is how to deal with NAT routers. Everyone needs, and should use, NAT routers in their house for security purposes, to save IP addresses, and just to get more than one computer in your house online. However, NAT routers make it difficult, if not impossible, to host video game servers on the equipment in your home.
The result is that we often rely on dedicated servers to play our games online. Either we pay the game publisher to host server, like with World of Warcraft, or we host our own, like with Counter-Strike. The thing is, there is absolutely no reason that we should have to do this. There are some very well known methods of "busting" NAT. Skype does it. Hamachi does it. Multiplayer games should just have this technology built in. Creating and joining games, going around routers, and finding other player's IP addresses should be completely transparent to the game player.
Can someone tell me whether Skype actually benefits from port forwarding? Someone said on one of the Geekchats that port forwarding will improve upon Skype's built in NAT busting abilities but Google isn't finding much on the subject.
This podcast seems interesting. They are covering Skype 2.5 though, not Skype 4 or 2.0 *Damn you Skype!* for Linux.
Well anyway, I've port forwarded my Skype client but is it worth asking others to do the same?
Complain about the DRM, but don't complain about the lack of a meaningless and archaic "feature."
Maybe I misunderstood the press announcement. Will the only interaction with the internet be the authorization? If the actual game play is over the network and not to the battle.net servers and back, I don't have an issue with that. My only concern is having 4+ people on my poor internet connection.
Cosmic, it's just that you don't understand the networking. RTS games are p2p or hosted by one of the players. It would be to no-one's advantage to route the traffic through the battle.net servers - latency would increase severely, and Blizzard would be paying for bandwidth they don't need to pay for. Traffic to a local destination would obviously be routed locally.
The result is that we often rely on dedicated servers to play our games online. Either we pay the game publisher to host server, like with World of Warcraft, or we host our own, like with Counter-Strike. The thing is, there is absolutely no reason that we should have to do this.
Bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth, is a significant issue for most people. Dedicated servers have their place.
Bumping an old thread.... I *may*, may, may, may be able to get cheap'ish copies but I have no official word yet. I'd be willing to help people out for no price. If I'm limited to a quantity, I'll post as soon as I know. Anyone who hasn't pre-ordered yet who would be interested in that?
*EDIT* Do not forget that SC2 will be regionalized. If you would like a key outside of the US, I *might* not be able to accommodate you but I'll do my best!
Update : I can get up to 5 regular edition copies for $10 each. I plan on buying them all on general principle. While I cannot profit from these sales, I'm more than happy to try and hook up some forumites.
Update : I can get up to 5 regular edition copies for $10 each. I plan on buying them all on general principle. While I cannot profit from these sales, I'm more than happy to try and hook up some forumites.
I should have anticipated this but a few of my friends came out of the woodwork wanting copies. I'll service them first and then contact people who expressed interest here once I get all of them squared away.
If you look closely, 80% of the APM doesn't accomplish anything; they are mostly selecting and deselecting units for no reason or just moving their camera to different parts of the map for no reason.
If you look closely, 80% of the APM doesn't accomplish anything; they are mostly selecting and deselecting units for no reason or just moving their camera to different parts of the map for no reason.
I can't really tell. It looks to me like they are precisely controlling the individual military units.
Comments
The result is that we often rely on dedicated servers to play our games online. Either we pay the game publisher to host server, like with World of Warcraft, or we host our own, like with Counter-Strike. The thing is, there is absolutely no reason that we should have to do this. There are some very well known methods of "busting" NAT. Skype does it. Hamachi does it. Multiplayer games should just have this technology built in. Creating and joining games, going around routers, and finding other player's IP addresses should be completely transparent to the game player.
This podcast seems interesting. They are covering Skype 2.5 though, not Skype 4 or 2.0 *Damn you Skype!* for Linux.
Well anyway, I've port forwarded my Skype client but is it worth asking others to do the same?
*EDIT* Do not forget that SC2 will be regionalized. If you would like a key outside of the US, I *might* not be able to accommodate you but I'll do my best!
Video says it all.
I should have anticipated this but a few of my friends came out of the woodwork wanting copies. I'll service them first and then contact people who expressed interest here once I get all of them squared away.
I was able to secure 3 more copies from another employee who wasn't ordering all of hers. It looks like everyone here should be able to get a code. =D