SC2/D3 speculation thread

[warz]

I thought the goal of a troll was to provoke anger in a discussion by carefully crafting a point that is controversial and flaw filled as to entice response.  I don't think anybody is religious enough over battle.net protocols to be angered by your comments.

Look what thread you're in, tard. I wasn't trying to make anyone angry and I was hardly trolling. I was sort of poking fun at how ambiguous the topic of this thread could be. Ofcourse anything anyone can do right now is speculate and it's kind of dumb to ask for other people's speculations because it's all going to be wrong right now. This thread would end up being a collection of wasted time, which I admit can be fun... but I just thought this partcicular thread was funny.

My point wasn't flaw filled or controversial had my original post even had a point.

May I again remind you that you're posting in a b.net related protocol discussion thread and you're trying to tell me that nobody in this thread is interested in the b.net protocol. Alright, nslay... I'll just go be religous somewhere else while you can continue trying too hard right here in this very thread. Good day.

[nslay]

I thought the goal of a troll was to provoke anger in a discussion by carefully crafting a point that is controversial and flaw filled as to entice response.  I don't think anybody is religious enough over battle.net protocols to be angered by your comments.

Look what thread you're in, tard. I wasn't trying to make anyone angry and I was hardly trolling. I was sort of poking fun at how ambiguous the topic of this thread could be. Ofcourse anything anyone can do right now is speculate and it's kind of dumb to ask for other people's speculations because it's all going to be wrong right now. This thread would end up being a collection of wasted time, which I admit can be fun... but I just thought this partcicular thread was funny.

My point wasn't flaw filled or controversial had my original post even had a point.

May I again remind you that you're posting in a b.net related protocol discussion thread and you're trying to tell me that nobody in this thread is interested in the b.net protocol. Alright, nslay... I'll just go be religous somewhere else while you can continue trying too hard right here in this very thread. Good day.

Cute :)

[Camel]

At Nortel we use something almost identical to b.net's protocol for our LTE mobile broadband protocol.

Incidentally, there's a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes of LTE that does use XML! It's all proprietary, though, so I can't even say what the things are called.

[warz]

At Nortel we use something almost identical to b.net's protocol for our LTE mobile broadband protocol.

Incidentally, there's a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes of LTE that does use XML! It's all proprietary, though, so I can't even say what the things are called.

I haven't seen any XML used at all through several different stages of deployment, throughout the entire server software. I don't work directly with the client-side software, so I'm unsure of that. It's possible, though...

[Camel]

We use XML for tons of stuff in the RNC. I actually just finished generating a report for Nortel that is related to XML in a way I'm not allowed to disclose.

[MyndFyre]

We use XML for tons of stuff in the RNC. I actually just finished generating a report for Nortel that is related to XML in a way I'm not allowed to disclose.

What does the Republican National Committee have to do with Nortel?

[warz]

Ah, well. Who knows what it's for, then. I haven't seen it used anywhere. It's possible it's not actually used yet, or it's used on some other product entirely. It may be used in some process that we use, but isn't a part of these products. This is a large company after all. I only know of like... 5% of what goes on here. :P

[Camel]

It may be used in some process that we use, but isn't a part of these products.

Yeah, that is possible too. I think all of our products use XML for the thing I'm thinking of (think SNMP?), but I know that we're not the only company NT deals with. For some reason, though, I am thinking it's a standard for the industry.

[Punk]

Damn, what warz did was hilarious. Very nice haha.

Why wouldn't they just keep the protocol the same? They're doing just fine right now imo.

[Ribose]

Why wouldn't they just keep the protocol the same? They're doing just fine right now imo.

IMO, they'll probably just keep it the same and just add more packets for the new features they are adding, for backwards compatibility with the current games...

[Punk]

If you think about it, wouldn't it be a good cost of money to refine the protocols there using now?

[warz]

maybe, maybe not

[MyndFyre]

If you think about it, wouldn't it be a good cost of money to refine the protocols there using now?

Why would that cost a lot?  It's not like they need to enable packet length greater than 65kb.  And the packet ID space isn't terribly full either.

[warz]

Time spent on reworking a protocol would no-doubt cost them a good amount of money - I assume this is probably already being done, though.

I'd be surprised if I saw the exact same protocol being used.

[MyndFyre]

Time spent on reworking a protocol would no-doubt cost them a good amount of money - I assume this is probably already being done, though.

I'd be surprised if I saw the exact same protocol being used.

Why would you be surprised?  The current protocol is not inadequate for most of what they need; hence, they don't need to "rework" the existing protocol.  They can add to it - but they don't need to enable that functionality in legacy clients.