7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 7. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 10, 2010, 04:29 |
vrok |
|
|
| Blizzard just confused the numbers. It's really battle.net 0.2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 9, 2010, 12:03 |
Verno |
|
|
kxmode wrote on Oct 8, 2010, 16:07:
You could say the same thing about Google's tech but you and I both know there's a LOT of bells and whistles driving that beast.
Except that in this case people got a less feature rich product than battle.net 1.0 unless you seriously believe adding an achievement tracking system is the pinnacle of multiplayer design. Put bluntly, battle.net 2.0 is a big letdown on almost every feature and usability front. About the best thing I can say about it is that at least games are easier to make/join.
I don't know anything about "Google's Tech" and that's incredibly vague so it sounds like you don't either btw. I'm not sure what the worlds largest search engine has in common with a computer videogame multiplayer framework either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Faster Than Light, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Ghost in the Shell, Hannibal, Oblivion |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 8, 2010, 16:07 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Verno wrote on Oct 8, 2010, 11:35:
While I'm sure the matchmaking process itself was labor intensive to create and support on the backend, the rest of battle.net 2.0 is pretty lean on features.
You could say the same thing about Google's tech but you and I both know there's a LOT of bells and whistles driving that beast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 8, 2010, 15:27 |
fujiJuice |
|
|
Verno wrote on Oct 8, 2010, 12:44:
I think it's probably built for performance scaling, not feature scalability.
Ah, I was unaware, I haven't been keeping tabs on the features of it, and I have only played SC2 briefly. They are fools for not designing it to adapt both ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 8, 2010, 12:44 |
Verno |
|
|
fujiJuice wrote on Oct 8, 2010, 12:24:
While I agree, I am sure they crafted the backend to make it extremely scalable for the ability to add or remove features almost like plugins, if they didn't I would be very surprised.
I'd say that's definitely not the case as even adding something as simple as chat back to it is taking them a hilariously long time. They use a modified ircd so we're not talking majorly complex to implement in the first place. Fixing the custom games functionality is another thing that they claim will take awhile despite many of the fixes being related to user interface and limitations in the map editor.
I think it's probably built for performance scaling, not feature scalability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Faster Than Light, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Ghost in the Shell, Hannibal, Oblivion |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 8, 2010, 12:24 |
fujiJuice |
|
|
Verno wrote on Oct 8, 2010, 11:35:
While I'm sure the matchmaking process itself was labor intensive to create and support on the backend, the rest of battle.net 2.0 is pretty lean on features.
While I agree, I am sure they crafted the backend to make it extremely scalable for the ability to add or remove features almost like plugins, if they didn't I would be very surprised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: On Battle.Net 2.0 |
Oct 8, 2010, 11:35 |
Verno |
|
|
| While I'm sure the matchmaking process itself was labor intensive to create and support on the backend, the rest of battle.net 2.0 is pretty lean on features. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Faster Than Light, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Ghost in the Shell, Hannibal, Oblivion |
|
|
|
|
| |
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
