Author Topic: SC2 Beta activated for some Battle.net accounts (Read 22792 times)

Quote from: warz on February 17, 2010, 06:32:18 pm
You're now obligated to start the official starcraft 2 bnet docs.
I ran a packet capture tonight. It's INSANE. Absolutely ridonculous.

Explain further.

deadly7 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2010, 12:35:53 am »

Congrats. Not like I'd ever be able to use SC2 though. New computer AND buying 3 $60 games to play the damn story? EFF. THAT.

Sidoh · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2010, 12:56:16 am »

Most of the people getting the invites are blizzcon attendees, right?

rabbit · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2010, 01:15:24 am »

Blizzcon attendees, most of the English commentators, some of the top foreigners, various contest winners (Blizzard had a Twitter contest, and they gave keys to fansites to distribute), and a bunch of random people.

Armin · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2010, 02:19:37 am »

I hope it gets cracked soon.

deadly7 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2010, 05:58:26 am »

I don't know if you guys keep up with the SC2 official domain, but they put up unique(? as far as i know) screenshots. This is probably my favorite, and it's my desktop wallpaper right now.
http://us.media.blizzard.com/starcraft2/images/screenshots/ss126-hires.jpg

Blaze · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2010, 09:41:21 am »

That screenshot feels very Star Trek to me. I love it.

While my Blizzard contact/friend totally fell-through, my media contact/friend said he could probably get me a key in the next week. Looking forward to that.

warz · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2010, 10:39:29 am »

A friend of mine got into the beta and let me zip up a few of the more interesting files from his SC2 install. I doubt I'll ever actually poke around in them, though. I'd rather be able to see them in context. $:-\$

rabbit · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2010, 10:54:00 am »

Quote from: Blaze on February 18, 2010, 09:41:21 am

That screenshot feels very Star Trek to me. I love it.

While my Blizzard contact/friend totally fell-through, my media contact/friend said he could probably get me a key in the next week. Looking forward to that.

Get me one :O

Super_X · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2010, 01:20:46 pm »

I'm very jealous.

Joe · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2010, 02:11:42 pm »

So Myndy, confirm/bust my suspicion that it uses WoW's servers and WoW's protocol.

deadly7 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2010, 03:33:18 pm »

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 02:11:42 pm

So Myndy, confirm/bust my suspicion that it uses WoW's servers and WoW's protocol.

I'll spare him having to do it and just tell you no without even having seen the game.

Towelie · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2010, 03:37:29 pm »

From my friend who has the beta:

Quote

disappointed by sc2
its like
the same fucking game
with better graphics....
and they got rid of lurkers...
-_-;

MyndFyre · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2010, 03:56:42 pm »

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 02:11:42 pm

So Myndy, confirm/bust my suspicion that it uses WoW's servers and WoW's protocol.

No, that doesn't even make sense. The games are architecturally dissimilar.

@Towelie: The graphics are actually pretty disappointing; it looks like it uses a slightly enhanced version of the War3 engine. My guess is that this round of betas is for balancing. It looks a LOT like War3. As for lurkers... there has to be a reason to be the Starcraft 2 expansion.

Blaze · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2010, 04:14:17 pm »

Lurkers were taken out as an experiment to see which tear is weakest. This means they might be added as Tier 2 (again) instead of Tier 3. (a good thing)

Joe · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2010, 04:18:43 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 18, 2010, 03:56:42 pm

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 02:11:42 pm
So Myndy, confirm/bust my suspicion that it uses WoW's servers and WoW's protocol.
No, that doesn't even make sense. The games are architecturally dissimilar.

I meant chat-wise.

Does Battle.net 2.0 currently communicate with WoW?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2010, 05:32:47 pm »

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 04:18:43 pm

Does Battle.net 2.0 currently communicate with WoW?

No. The disturbing thing is that I wasn't even able to identify Battle.net chat.

deadly7 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2010, 05:37:40 pm »

Wait, regarding graphics:

So the gameplay videos are completely false? Those don't look like polygon blocks as was the case with WC3. Is there no actual shading and texture detail?

rabbit · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2010, 05:46:03 pm »

The "Social" (read: channels) part of Bnet2 isn't operational yet.

ps: blarg

Joe · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:15:55 pm »

Ah. My hunch is that Diablo III, StarCraft II, and World of WarCraft will all connect to Battle.net 2.0 servers and have "social" elements shared between all games, much like StarCraft, Diablo II, and WarCraft III do. Why do I think so? Well, because I've seen screenshots of World of WarCraft: Catacylsm people having StarCraft Alpha people on their friends list.

It'll be interesting to see how Bnet2 pans out. I'm really excited since hopefully this will bring around a new generation of bot development. I miss 5 years ago when the large community around vL inspired many (including myself) to learn program. Now, with a new protocol to reverse, and a myriad of new languages replacing VB6 (.NET specifically), it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Blaze · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:18:53 pm »

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 06:15:55 pm

Ah. My hunch is that Diablo III, StarCraft II, and World of WarCraft will all connect to Battle.net 2.0 servers and have "social" elements shared between all games, much like StarCraft, Diablo II, and WarCraft III do. Why do I think so? Well, because I've seen screenshots of World of WarCraft: Catacylsm people having StarCraft Alpha people on their friends list.

It'll be interesting to see how Bnet2 pans out. I'm really excited since hopefully this will bring around a new generation of bot development. I miss 5 years ago when the large community around vL inspired many (including myself) to learn program. Now, with a new protocol to reverse, and a myriad of new languages replacing VB6 (.NET specifically), it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Wow, it's like you've seen the many, many, many interviews where they talk about that!

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/misc/battlenet.xml

iago · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:25:57 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 18, 2010, 05:32:47 pm

No. The disturbing thing is that I wasn't even able to identify Battle.net chat.

Well, when WC3 came out as Beta everything was encrypted.

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 18, 2010, 03:56:42 pm

As for lurkers... there has to be a reason to be the Starcraft 2 expansion.

My thoughts exactly.

while1 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:32:38 pm »

* while1 the Korean goes and kills himself now.

rabbit · « **Reply #31 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:33:46 pm »

Quote from: Joe on February 18, 2010, 06:15:55 pm

It'll be interesting to see how Bnet2 pans out. I'm really excited since hopefully this will bring around a new generation of bot development. I miss 5 years ago when the large community around vL inspired many (including myself) to learn program. Now, with a new protocol to reverse, and a myriad of new languages replacing VB6 (.NET specifically), it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Now that vL is nearly dead, maybe we can become the Bnet2 guys?

while1 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:39:54 pm »

I say we then write a service and stick it on a server to encapsulate all the reverse engineering we did and not share any of the low-level know-how, making those who can't do it themselves utterly dependent on our server(s)!

rabbit · « **Reply #33 on:** February 18, 2010, 06:48:16 pm »

Sounds like a plan.

Joe · « **Reply #34 on:** February 18, 2010, 08:17:24 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on February 18, 2010, 06:33:46 pm

Now that vL is nearly dead, maybe we can become the Bnet2 guys?

Well, I sort of was implying that, because we're still the (previously) vL guys.

warz · « **Reply #35 on:** February 19, 2010, 12:00:54 pm »

wtb packet dump of a valid sign in!

MyndFyre · « **Reply #36 on:** February 19, 2010, 02:41:36 pm »

Hell no.

deadly7 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:35:18 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 19, 2010, 02:41:36 pm

Hell no.

Blizzard would be ALL over you if you did that as a beta tester. Good call. Hahah.

warz · « **Reply #38 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:11:51 pm »

No worries. It has already been provided by others!

There were 250 people in this irc channel all reverse engineering SC2 client last night, before they gayed it up and moved to a private channel. Now there's only about 30 in the private one. But still, some cool progress has been made towards allowing an offline game against bots, as well as an emu server.

SNiFFeR · « **Reply #39 on:** February 21, 2010, 04:03:56 pm »

I got a beta key.

wires · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2010, 10:45:31 pm »

Someone should share their account with me. <3

Chavo · « **Reply #41 on:** March 11, 2010, 12:17:34 am »

Oh ya, I forgot to mention that I've been in and playing as well. Matchmaking is awesome.

deadly7 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 11, 2010, 04:53:19 am »

You're all assholes. Answer me someone!

Quote from: deadly7 on February 18, 2010, 05:37:40 pm

Wait, regarding graphics:

So the gameplay videos are completely false? Those don't look like polygon blocks as was the case with WC3. Is there no actual shading and texture detail?

Also, would any die-hard SC/SC:BW fan be satisfied and enjoy SC2? I have mixed emotions about that, and my brief experiences with the demo don't necessarily help my thought process.

wires · « **Reply #43 on:** March 11, 2010, 09:05:51 am »

Quote from: deadly7 on March 11, 2010, 04:53:19 am

You're all assholes. Answer me someone!

Quote from: deadly7 on February 18, 2010, 05:37:40 pm
Wait, regarding graphics:

So the gameplay videos are completely false? Those don't look like polygon blocks as was the case with WC3. Is there no actual shading and texture detail?

Also, would any die-hard SC/SC:BW fan be satisfied and enjoy SC2? I have mixed emotions about that, and my brief experiences with the demo don't necessarily help my thought process.

I finally got to play against some actual players last night. So far, think the game is pretty awesome.

On another note, starcraft 2 can run a wide range of computer specs. I've seen people talk about playing it on netbooks at 20fps.

deadly7 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2010, 10:19:27 am »

Quote from: wires on March 11, 2010, 09:05:51 am

On another note, starcraft 2 can run a wide range of computer specs. I've seen people talk about playing it on netbooks at 20fps.

I call bs. Even Blizzard's own website says that shouldn't be possible. And at any rate, my desktop is god-awful..
1.15GHz/1GB RAM/64mb GeForce 3 Ti200.

warz · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2010, 11:11:09 am »

The graphics are better than WC3's, but they do look similar to the artistic cartoony style of WC3. I've got graphics on it at max and it looks good. I still cannot figure out why it took so long to be released. It honestly looks like WC3, with higher resolution models. I've heard many complaints about it feeling too zoomed in, but I didn't get that feeling personally.

For me, this game is going to be one that I opt to not purchase. And, if I ever do decide to it will most likely not be for the gameplay, but more so for checking out the new Battle.net stuff.

wires · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2010, 04:32:59 pm »

Quote from: deadly7 on March 11, 2010, 10:19:27 am

Quote from: wires on March 11, 2010, 09:05:51 am
On another note, starcraft 2 can run a wide range of computer specs. I've seen people talk about playing it on netbooks at 20fps.
I call bs. Even Blizzard's own website says that shouldn't be possible. And at any rate, my desktop is god-awful..
1.15GHz/1GB RAM/64mb GeForce 3 Ti200.

Obviously if you run it on a netbook you'd have to run everything on low. Seriously though, I've seen some people that opted in with terrible computers and they can play it fine on low. You can run World of Warcraft on netbooks at 20fps.

Sidoh · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2010, 04:50:26 pm »

My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.

deadly7 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2010, 05:33:38 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on March 11, 2010, 04:50:26 pm

My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.

My impression has always been that, in the developers' eyes, to have a completely fulfilling experience playing their game, your computer should meet X requirements. And, seeing as how I probably have one of [if not the] worst desktop PC out of everyone here, let me safely tell you that playing games on their absolute lowest settings is *not* how they intended you to do it, nor is it as fun.

iago · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2010, 06:41:50 pm »

Quote from: deadly7 on March 11, 2010, 05:33:38 pm

Quote from: Sidoh on March 11, 2010, 04:50:26 pm
My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.
My impression has always been that, in the developers' eyes, to have a completely fulfilling experience playing their game, your computer should meet X requirements. And, seeing as how I probably have one of [if not the] worst desktop PC out of everyone here, let me safely tell you that playing games on their absolute lowest settings is *not* how they intended you to do it, nor is it as fun.

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does.

Joe · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2010, 06:43:14 pm »

Well, with Blizzard games it seems that they go to an OEM website, find the specs of their lowest computer, divide them in half, and print them on the box.

warz · « **Reply #51 on:** March 11, 2010, 08:08:09 pm »

You're all being sarcastic, right?

deadly7 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 11, 2010, 11:16:18 pm »

Quote from: iago on March 11, 2010, 06:41:50 pm

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does.

I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

iago · « **Reply #53 on:** March 12, 2010, 09:34:42 am »

Quote from: deadly7 on March 11, 2010, 11:16:18 pm

Quote from: iago on March 11, 2010, 06:41:50 pm
I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does.
I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

I'm sure they do. Then they give those numbers to marketing, who ignore them.

Joe · « **Reply #54 on:** March 12, 2010, 12:49:41 pm »

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 09:34:42 am

I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them.

iago · « **Reply #55 on:** March 12, 2010, 03:10:40 pm »

Quote from: Joe on March 12, 2010, 12:49:41 pm

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 09:34:42 am
I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them.

Your modified quote says the same thing as my original quote.

Sidoh · « **Reply #56 on:** March 12, 2010, 03:12:11 pm »

Quote from: deadly7 on March 11, 2010, 11:16:18 pm

Quote from: iago on March 11, 2010, 06:41:50 pm
I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does.
I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

You're speculating... the fact remains that you can run a lot of games on computers that are much worse than the ones described in the "minimum requirements".

Blaze · « **Reply #57 on:** March 12, 2010, 03:48:02 pm »

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 03:10:40 pm

Quote from: Joe on March 12, 2010, 12:49:41 pm
Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 09:34:42 am
I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them.
Your modified quote says the same thing as my original quote.

You should probably ignore it like everyone else.

deadly7 · « **Reply #58 on:** March 12, 2010, 06:43:25 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on March 12, 2010, 03:12:11 pm

You're speculating... the fact remains that you can run a lot of games on computers that are much worse than the ones described in the "minimum requirements".

I guess that depends on what you mean by "run" a game. Sure you could play SC2 on a netbook at 20fps, but I'm betting it would be *awful* gameplay. I don't disagree that minimum requirements are inflated, but there is a certain quality that the company wants you to play with their game. As a personal anecdote, I played Max Payne which had specs that just slightly beat my own specs. And my experience wasn't that great. I have some more, better examples, but I'm saying playing a game when the developers did not intend you to play it at that low a level does not qualify as "running" a game.

Sidoh · « **Reply #59 on:** March 12, 2010, 07:36:16 pm »

lol... you're kind of funny.

Joe · « **Reply #60 on:** March 12, 2010, 11:35:47 pm »

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 03:10:40 pm

Quote from: Joe on March 12, 2010, 12:49:41 pm
Quote from: iago on March 12, 2010, 09:34:42 am
I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them.
Your modified quote says the same thing as my original quote.

Mine fits almost any business situation, and generally is true!

wires · « **Reply #61 on:** March 18, 2010, 08:42:20 pm »

Someone send me a invite-a-friend key?

rabbit · « **Reply #62 on:** March 18, 2010, 09:43:16 pm »

Me first! sragen at gmail dot com

Sidoh · « **Reply #63 on:** March 18, 2010, 09:46:33 pm »

I'd take one too if there are any left.

<3

i would rove you rong time.

Armin · « **Reply #64 on:** March 19, 2010, 09:22:28 pm »

MetalMilitiaESP@gmail.com

Since I'm the first to include an email address, it's only fair that I'm invited first.

Chavo · « **Reply #65 on:** March 20, 2010, 11:04:45 am »

Quote from: Armin on March 19, 2010, 09:22:28 pm

Since I'm the first silly enough to include an email address in a public section, it's only fair that I'm ~~invited first~~ spammed with offers to rescue a Nigerian princess.

fixed

<3

Blaze · « **Reply #66 on:** March 20, 2010, 11:56:58 am »

He uses GMail. He won't see any spam.

rabbit · « **Reply #67 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:29:50 pm »

So who's what rank in what divisions? I'm looking for some people to join my gaming clan. Our current team is qxc.qxc, who is #1 in a platinum division.

Furious · « **Reply #68 on:** March 20, 2010, 02:30:43 pm »

Yar.

dgladhill@gmail.com

right meow!

wires · « **Reply #69 on:** March 20, 2010, 02:53:28 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on March 20, 2010, 01:29:50 pm

So who's what rank in what divisions? I'm looking for some people to join my gaming clan. Our current team is qxc.qxc, who is #1 in a platinum division.

I'm #1 Bronze in 1v1s, but I also share an account with 2 other people. The original owner did the placement matches so we're stuck in a league that we don't belong in. Haven't done any 2v2s, but have 300 games logged so far in 1v1. The amount of golds, silvers, and platinums that my friend and I have beaten, I'm pretty sure we would make a gold or platinum team.

Looking for another account. <3

Armin · « **Reply #70 on:** March 20, 2010, 03:13:27 pm »

Quote from: Chavo on March 20, 2010, 11:04:45 am

Quote from: Armin on March 19, 2010, 09:22:28 pm
Since I'm the first silly enough to include an email address in a public section, it's only fair that I'm ~~invited first~~ spammed with offers to rescue a Nigerian princess.
fixed

<3

Hahaha. It's been a while since a post has made me smile in real life.

Chavo · « **Reply #71 on:** March 20, 2010, 06:25:42 pm »

I was #11 in Gold Division 33 1v1 for a while, but I've fallen since then because I haven't played in a few days. I'm in Platinum Division 54 2v2 as well, but not doing so hot right now :/

Joe · « **Reply #72 on:** March 24, 2010, 03:27:55 pm »

wjlafrance at gmail dot com.

rabbit · « **Reply #73 on:** March 24, 2010, 04:31:27 pm »

But seriously....anyone have a friend invite?

News:

Author Topic: SC2 Beta activated for some Battle.net accounts (Read 22792 times)