Downloadig patch...3 hours and not even close to being done

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch system...I
wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3 server, I get to
d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I started 3 hours ago...there
is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!
68 answers Last reply
More about downloadig patch hours close done
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Magnie wrote:
    > Surely there is a better way of doing this.

    There is.

    http://www.wowguru.com

    For all your WoW needs. Don't forget to check for updates to your UI
    mods from www.ctmod.net, www.curse-gaming, etc.

    Regards,
    Noal
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Magnie wrote:
    >
    > Donald Wilson

    OT: Did you used to hardcore Diablo II on the USWest servers?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Magnie wrote:
    > "Tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1126659372.676925.243680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > >
    > > Magnie wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Donald Wilson
    > >
    > > OT: Did you used to hardcore Diablo II on the USWest servers?
    > >
    >
    > Sure did, regular user of D2 ng channel (but I cant remember the convoluted
    > name). Did you?
    >
    >
    > Donald

    Yes, you actually helped get me started playing HC (I thought there
    couldn't be another Magnie). I posted on the news group about getting
    ganked, and got quite a few offers for help. My account was Cavadure.
    You and I were one of the few people that didn't use map-hack at all.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1126659372.676925.243680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Magnie wrote:
    >>
    >> Donald Wilson
    >
    > OT: Did you used to hardcore Diablo II on the USWest servers?
    >

    Sure did, regular user of D2 ng channel (but I cant remember the convoluted
    name). Did you?


    Donald
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    David <dave@name.com> writes:

    > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!

    Do you have the appropriate ports open and forwarded to your system?

    The following page lists the ports:

    http://www.blizzard.com/support/wow/?id=aww01154p

    HTH,

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    my advice download it from alternate sources.. such as Lucy's or Alka's..
    much faster and much less tug on the server!.. Just a tip because we do it
    all the time :) Download the patch into the WOW directory and run it.. works
    like a champ..
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    I'm downloading at 95KB/s right now
    Anyone who opts to download via AOL with dial-up deserses what they get
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "David" <dave@name.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96D0C062BB618namenamecom@216.196.97.131...
    >I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch system...I
    > wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3 server, I get
    > to
    > d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I started 3 hours ago...there
    > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!

    Filefront usually has it an hour after it's released.

    I download when at work (got it in 10 minutes today/ 166kbs - no queues
    'cause I did it very shortly after they posted it), burn it to CD and bring
    it home.

    Obviously won't work for everyone out there, but works well for me. :)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    David wrote:
    > I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch system...I
    > wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3 server, I get to
    > d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I started 3 hours ago...there
    > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!

    I'd say the problem is all at your end mate, you must have the required
    P2P port blocked as I downloaded through the default peer to peer
    system in 10 mins and 18 seconds (according to the download interface)
    Getting nearly 200KBPS at times.
    The system works great and is a good way to do it for me, It's not
    Blizzard's fault people don't use it properly.

    Damon
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mine's been at it for about 11 hours now.

    I'm 98% done...

    w00t :(


    "David" <dave@name.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96D0C062BB618namenamecom@216.196.97.131...
    >I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch system...I
    > wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3 server, I get
    > to
    > d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I started 3 hours ago...there
    > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Kav wrote:
    >
    > Ah right, well Blizzard should have put on the box.
    >
    > "User should have an excellent knowledge of peer to peer file sharing
    > techniques, the setting up and use thereof to be able to use this game on a
    > weekly basis. Hey, it's not our fault you never spent weeks downloading
    > pirated software and porn to get your skills up in this!"
    >
    > Sorry but what you say is bollox, it's a game, not a technical test for
    > geeks. The majority of gamers won't even care what a peer to peer network is
    > let alone know the tweaks for best performance. If Blizzard really did
    > expect users to know all this then they have serious problems with market
    > research.

    Or it perhaps should say that "user should have basic knowledge of how
    to use google to find out how to open the necessary ports on their
    particular router" to increase the connections and ergo the download
    speed of patches.

    >From the official WOW site
    I'm constantly displaying a "connecting to peers" message.
    If you are using a firewall, you will need to ensure that ports 6112,
    3724, and 6881 through 6999 are open in order for the Blizzard
    Downloader to connect correctly. If you are using a router, you may
    also need to set up port forwarding for these ports. You may need to
    refer to your firewall/router's documentation for instructions on
    opening ports and setting up port forwarding.

    You should find it in your router settings under "Application gateways"
    or similar, enter 6881-6991 in the ports field and select it for both
    UDP and TCP
    Or look in your software firewall, zonealarm or whatever and make sure
    it is allowed to freely connect.
    Nothing geeky about it, you can install the game you should be able to
    do this also.


    Damon
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Raymond Baastad wrote:
    > My take on it:
    >
    > While I see the headache that pushing 200MB patches to 4 million
    > customers give, BLizzard charges it customers money to play the game and
    > then stick them with Bittorrent as a distribution tool.
    >
    > It is cheap, it requires technical insight that the user should not need
    > to have. In short it blows syphilitic goats.

    It is cheap. You could argue that Blizzard pass that saving on to you.
    WoW is cheaper per month than both EQ and EQ2. I have never had a
    problem with download speeds with WoW and I guess that this is the case
    for the majority of players.


    > > The system works great and is a good way to do it for me, It's not
    > > Blizzard's fault people don't use it properly.
    >
    > As a paying customer I should not have to know how to set my firewall
    > settings or router ports right blah blah blah. Even connected directly,
    > behind a router, behind a firewall, outside the firewall or a regular
    > router DMZ I have yet to have a trouble-free patch download. I want a
    > downloader that works and Blizzard refuses to give me one.

    And I have never had a troubled patch download. I will admit that it
    isn't as nice as the Sony ones but it does work.


    > Alternative ways (filefront etc.) work some of the time. The 1hr+ wait
    > that often occurs on patch day is worth it compared to the bittorrent
    > client imo. I refuse to pay for a service in order to get a patch I
    > already paid for.
    >
    > I solved the problem by setting up my own patch archive for guildies. It
    > should not be neccesary, but Blizzard forces me to do this.

    How did that solve the problem? Surely your guildies would have to
    wait for you to download the patch and then re-upload it to your server
    (assuming that the server is not in your house which may be the case).
    Either way they have a significant wait before they can even start to
    download the patch from you. Surely, they could have already got the
    patch from somewhere else in the meantime. The only way I can see it
    helping them is if you can start downloading the patch before they have
    the opportunity to (if they were at work perhaps)

    steve.kaye
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1126660579.544579.29370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

    <Snip>

    >
    > Yes, you actually helped get me started playing HC (I thought there
    > couldn't be another Magnie). I posted on the news group about getting
    > ganked, and got quite a few offers for help. My account was Cavadure.
    > You and I were one of the few people that didn't use map-hack at all.
    >

    Hi,

    Yes I remember. There are a few of us from that group playing WoW on llane
    now (though the numbers have dropped a bit) - if you happen to have a char
    on there, msg me sometime.

    Donald
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Magnie wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Yes I remember. There are a few of us from that group playing WoW on llane
    > now (though the numbers have dropped a bit) - if you happen to have a char
    > on there, msg me sometime.
    >
    > Donald

    Well its good to know your playing WoW. Too bad I didn't know that
    before I started. I'm on Cenarion Circle with a 36 rogue. I just got
    my alchemy up to 275 last night and I'm having a blast with him.

    Maybe I'll start an alt on llane so I can look in on the old D2 group.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Robert S. wrote:
    > And keep in mind, to Blizzard's credit, patching is not to fix the game
    > like other company's patches typically are. Patching from Blizzard in
    > the case of WoW has been to add content and make adjustments. This
    > game has worked flawlessly from the day I took it out of the box last
    > November. Yeah, the Dressing Room is fluff, and everyone I spoke to
    > said it was too cool, but this patch included Arathi Basin PvP and Zul
    > Gurrab raid-instance (however they're spelled). This is free content
    > increase.
    >

    Most MMO's patches add content and make adjustments (aka nerfs :) ).
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 13 Sep 2005 17:48:14 -0700, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my-deja.com> wrote:
    > Magnie wrote:
    > > Surely there is a better way of doing this.
    >
    > There is.
    >
    > http://www.wowguru.com
    >
    > For all your WoW needs. Don't forget to check for updates to your UI
    > mods from www.ctmod.net, www.curse-gaming, etc.

    But from what I've seen they are mostly just a help for people playing the
    enUS and enGB variants of the game. I have yet to find an alternate server
    who has the deDE patches within *several* days of a patch release. So if you
    know of one, please let me know!!!

    Thank
    Urbin

    --
    Urbin (57), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gera (14), Human Paladin (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Sneak (7), Troll Rogue (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gorosh (5), Tauren Druid (PvP) @sunstrider.en
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 14 Sep 2005 01:17:17 -0700, Damon <google@dshawcross.co.uk> wrote:
    > David wrote:
    > > My 6 MB cable connection is being brought down to less then 1K /
    > > second...mostly it says zero K. Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to
    > > afford a server!
    >
    > I'd say the problem is all at your end mate, you must have the required
    > P2P port blocked as I downloaded through the default peer to peer
    > system in 10 mins and 18 seconds (according to the download interface)
    > Getting nearly 200KBPS at times.

    I can sympathise with the original poster. I have an ADSL router at home
    capable of 600kbps downstream and my downstream bit rate is usually at
    0-1kbps with the occasional 'burst' of 2-4kbps. My upstream bandwidth is
    around 24kbps.

    I have opened myself wide open to the nasties of the net by allowing
    all incoming connections through NAT on my ADSL router and by disabling my
    software firewall and even then, there is no improvement. If you can tell me
    what else I have to do in order to make Blizzard's system work I would be
    eternally grateful.

    Cheers
    Urbin

    --
    Urbin (57), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gera (14), Human Paladin (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Sneak (7), Troll Rogue (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gorosh (5), Tauren Druid (PvP) @sunstrider.en
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Damon" <google@dshawcross.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1126685837.453456.324450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

    > The system works great and is a good way to do it for me, It's not
    > Blizzard's fault people don't use it properly.
    >
    > Damon
    >

    LOL.

    Ah right, well Blizzard should have put on the box.

    "User should have an excellent knowledge of peer to peer file sharing
    techniques, the setting up and use thereof to be able to use this game on a
    weekly basis. Hey, it's not our fault you never spent weeks downloading
    pirated software and porn to get your skills up in this!"

    Sorry but what you say is bollox, it's a game, not a technical test for
    geeks. The majority of gamers won't even care what a peer to peer network is
    let alone know the tweaks for best performance. If Blizzard really did
    expect users to know all this then they have serious problems with market
    research.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Kav wrote:
    > >
    >
    > Wrong.
    >
    > I work in IT and I train many different levels of people. To the average
    > gamer/person the above might as well be written "tortikdgm,fdg./
    > kjgk;lerf;ldsgf.lrdegjk.re jr;wfio;rsflhsrfhlewr"
    >
    > Maybe you enjoy twiddling with the nitty gritty firewall port settings, but
    > most people can't be arsed. They want to switch on their game, download any
    > patch quickly and efficiently, and get on with it. Not screw about with the
    > settings of their firewall.


    Agreed with you 100% (and the rest is a general rant, not directed at
    you)

    I'm fairly computer illiterate. I used to know quite a bit, back in
    the DOS days, but the various Windows left me behind :) I bought the
    game to have fun, not to dink around with firewall settings (placed
    that way to protect my system, why should I have to work around WoW,
    shouldn't it work around standard firewalls like WinXP Pro or McAfee)
    and leave my PC (more) open to attack.

    Granted, I can hop on the computer my parents have, with cable modem,
    and download the patch from fileplanet.net (and I do, since my own PC
    runs on dialup) -- but with 3-4 million subscribers, is it really fair
    to put the onus of troubleshooting on the end user? Can't Blizzard use
    a better patcher?

    Again, I'm not personally complaining about the patch/firewall issues
    (since they don't currently affect me), it took me very little time to
    get and install, but I worked around the bittorrent patcher. I
    probably shouldn't have too, though.

    That's why I agree with the above -- people just want to play a game,
    not to root around in the guts of their system and possibly screw
    things up even worse. The patching system is probably the one thing I
    score EQ or CoH much higher than WoW for.

    Take it and run.

    Earl Allison
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Urbin wrote:
    > On 13 Sep 2005 17:48:14 -0700, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my-deja.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Magnie wrote:
    >>
    >>>Surely there is a better way of doing this.
    >>
    >> There is.
    >>
    >> http://www.wowguru.com
    >>
    >> For all your WoW needs. Don't forget to check for updates to your UI
    >> mods from www.ctmod.net, www.curse-gaming, etc.
    >
    >
    > But from what I've seen they are mostly just a help for people playing the
    > enUS and enGB variants of the game. I have yet to find an alternate server
    > who has the deDE patches within *several* days of a patch release. So if you
    > know of one, please let me know!!!
    >
    > Thank
    > Urbin
    >
    In fact, the wowguru server and mirrors usually have the deDE patch even
    before the enGB, and this is also true for today
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:20:07 +0200, Stavros Christoforou <stgreek@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Urbin wrote:
    > > On 13 Sep 2005 17:48:14 -0700, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my-deja.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > But from what I've seen they are mostly just a help for people playing the
    > > enUS and enGB variants of the game. I have yet to find an alternate server
    > > who has the deDE patches within *several* days of a patch release. So if you
    > > know of one, please let me know!!!
    > >
    > In fact, the wowguru server and mirrors usually have the deDE patch even
    > before the enGB, and this is also true for today

    Thanks, I will check it tonight. I must have really not searched well the
    last two times then.

    Cheers
    Urbin

    --
    Urbin (57), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gera (14), Human Paladin (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Sneak (7), Troll Rogue (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gorosh (5), Tauren Druid (PvP) @sunstrider.en
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Urbin a écrit :
    > But from what I've seen they are mostly just a help for people playing the
    > enUS and enGB variants of the game. I have yet to find an alternate server
    > who has the deDE patches within *several* days of a patch release. So if you
    > know of one, please let me know!!!

    here you can find all EU version

    http://www.clubic.com/patch-jeux-video-451-0-world-of-warcraft.html
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:44:30 +0200, sylvain.moindron <sylvain.moindron@pasdepub.free.fr> wrote:
    > Urbin a écrit :
    > > But from what I've seen they are mostly just a help for people playing the
    > > enUS and enGB variants of the game. I have yet to find an alternate server
    > > who has the deDE patches within *several* days of a patch release. So if you
    > > know of one, please let me know!!!
    >
    > here you can find all EU version
    >
    > http://www.clubic.com/patch-jeux-video-451-0-world-of-warcraft.html

    Excellent, thank you
    Urbin

    --
    Urbin (57), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gera (14), Human Paladin (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Sneak (7), Troll Rogue (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
    Gorosh (5), Tauren Druid (PvP) @sunstrider.en
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > my advice download it from alternate sources.. such as Lucy's or Alka's..
    > much faster and much less tug on the server!.. Just a tip because we do it
    > all the time :) Download the patch into the WOW directory and run it..
    > works like a champ..


    This seems to be the advice everytime a new patch comes out. I have
    high-speed connection and like the original post the download crawls 2-5
    hours generally for the patch. The download has to babysat as well because
    error msg pop ups occur that need user input to continue download. I love
    the one that says to disable my firewall. I have opted to use alternate
    sources but I shouldn't be forced to travel to unknown sites to get the
    patch. Seems like a dumb idea when I pay a monthly service fee. Its worse
    because most people have disabled their firewall at that point (after the
    port exclusions don't help, people will do that and forget to re-enable,
    either they don't no what an exclusion is or are lazy).. Please don't give
    advice to seek alternate sources, the only solution is for Blizzard to
    rethink their patch distribution. Their system doesn't work and instead of
    fixing it they put the owness on others and pocket the savings.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Nick Vargish wrote:
    >
    > David <dave@name.com> writes:
    >
    > > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!
    >
    > Do you have the appropriate ports open and forwarded to your system?
    >
    > The following page lists the ports:
    >
    > http://www.blizzard.com/support/wow/?id=aww01154p
    >
    > HTH,
    >

    Oh yes, I'm so eager to turn off NAT so I can forward ports, and oh yes,
    leave that computer more vulnerable to net threats, so Blizzard can save
    money on servers. Or I can reconfigure my router twice for every patch,
    so Blizzard can save money on servers. And I'm sure the general public,
    who had trouble setting the time on their VCRs will be more than happy
    to delve into file sharing and program file folders. Of course, since
    many home networking users have trouble even getting it all to work at
    all, they'll have to learn about file sharing and stuff. But I'm sure
    they won't mind, knowing that it will allow Blizzard to save money on
    servers.

    I love the game, I live with the service, but let's at least look at
    this honestly. The only, the ONLY way Blizzard can get away with this
    abysmal level of service is because the game really is that good.

    Lisa
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Damon wrote:
    >
    > Kav wrote:
    > >
    > > Ah right, well Blizzard should have put on the box.
    > >
    > > "User should have an excellent knowledge of peer to peer file sharing
    > > techniques, the setting up and use thereof to be able to use this game on a
    > > weekly basis. Hey, it's not our fault you never spent weeks downloading
    > > pirated software and porn to get your skills up in this!"
    > >
    > > Sorry but what you say is bollox, it's a game, not a technical test for
    > > geeks. The majority of gamers won't even care what a peer to peer network is
    > > let alone know the tweaks for best performance. If Blizzard really did
    > > expect users to know all this then they have serious problems with market
    > > research.
    >
    > Or it perhaps should say that "user should have basic knowledge of how
    > to use google to find out how to open the necessary ports on their
    > particular router" to increase the connections and ergo the download
    > speed of patches.
    >
    > >From the official WOW site
    > I'm constantly displaying a "connecting to peers" message.
    > If you are using a firewall, you will need to ensure that ports 6112,
    > 3724, and 6881 through 6999 are open in order for the Blizzard
    > Downloader to connect correctly. If you are using a router, you may
    > also need to set up port forwarding for these ports. You may need to
    > refer to your firewall/router's documentation for instructions on
    > opening ports and setting up port forwarding.

    And the average user can do this? I think not.

    And that's not considering that disabling NAT is STRONGLY not advised
    for security reasons.

    >
    > You should find it in your router settings under "Application gateways"
    > or similar, enter 6881-6991 in the ports field and select it for both
    > UDP and TCP
    > Or look in your software firewall, zonealarm or whatever and make sure
    > it is allowed to freely connect.
    > Nothing geeky about it, you can install the game you should be able to
    > do this also.

    Here's a better idea: don't ask average users to learn home networking
    in order to get their patch. And don't ask experienced users to do
    things they know are unwise and lead to reduced security.

    Lisa
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    David wrote:
    >
    > I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch system...I
    > wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3 server, I get to
    > d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I started 3 hours ago...there
    > is no way it will be done by morning. My 6 MB cable connection is being
    > brought down to less then 1K / second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!

    Only took me a few hours. Then the downloader happily announced that it
    had finished in 25 minutes. Uh huh...

    Lisa
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    David wrote:
    > I am sure there is a reason Blizz choose this peer to peer patch
    > system...I wish I knew what this reason was. Instead of d/l from a T3
    > server, I get to d/l from someones dial up 28.8K AOL account. I
    > started 3 hours ago...there is no way it will be done by morning. My
    > 6 MB cable connection is being brought down to less then 1K /
    > second...mostly it says zero K.
    > Why Blizzard? You have got to be able to afford a server!

    try here, seems wowguru are overwhelmed at minute:

    http://gamershell.com/download_10729.shtml
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    35 minutes to download and apply patch on a 1.5mbps ADSL line in Australia
    using the standard Blizzard Bittorrent Client.

    My system is setup as the DMZ though so no port blocking issues, and I did
    not disable "peer to peer" which of course kills your download rate
    immensely (as it should in a peer to peer model).
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Robert S." <trawetstrebor@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:1126700094.459254.141390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    > Or you could google and find that Filefront has the 1.7 Patch file for
    > download.
    >
    > All 54MB took a few minutes to download.

    Same here. It actually took longer for the download to begin that it did
    for the actual data transfer itself.

    > And keep in mind, to Blizzard's credit, patching is not to fix the game
    > like other company's patches typically are. Patching from Blizzard in
    > the case of WoW has been to add content and make adjustments. This
    > game has worked flawlessly from the day I took it out of the box last
    > November.

    Heh, well, as far as that goes, you must have been playing a different WoW
    than I was during that first month or so. ;)

    --
    Richard Carpenter
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Damon" <google@dshawcross.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1126698008.206354.280300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Kav wrote:
    >>
    >> Ah right, well Blizzard should have put on the box.
    >>
    >> "User should have an excellent knowledge of peer to peer file sharing
    >> techniques, the setting up and use thereof to be able to use this game on
    >> a
    >> weekly basis. Hey, it's not our fault you never spent weeks downloading
    >> pirated software and porn to get your skills up in this!"
    >>
    >> Sorry but what you say is bollox, it's a game, not a technical test for
    >> geeks. The majority of gamers won't even care what a peer to peer network
    >> is
    >> let alone know the tweaks for best performance. If Blizzard really did
    >> expect users to know all this then they have serious problems with market
    >> research.
    >
    > Or it perhaps should say that "user should have basic knowledge of how
    > to use google to find out how to open the necessary ports on their
    > particular router" to increase the connections and ergo the download
    > speed of patches.
    >
    >>From the official WOW site
    > I'm constantly displaying a "connecting to peers" message.
    > If you are using a firewall, you will need to ensure that ports 6112,
    > 3724, and 6881 through 6999 are open in order for the Blizzard
    > Downloader to connect correctly. If you are using a router, you may
    > also need to set up port forwarding for these ports. You may need to
    > refer to your firewall/router's documentation for instructions on
    > opening ports and setting up port forwarding.
    >
    > You should find it in your router settings under "Application gateways"
    > or similar, enter 6881-6991 in the ports field and select it for both
    > UDP and TCP
    > Or look in your software firewall, zonealarm or whatever and make sure
    > it is allowed to freely connect.
    > Nothing geeky about it, you can install the game you should be able to
    > do this also.
    >
    >
    > Damon
    >

    Wrong.

    I work in IT and I train many different levels of people. To the average
    gamer/person the above might as well be written "tortikdgm,fdg./
    kjgk;lerf;ldsgf.lrdegjk.re jr;wfio;rsflhsrfhlewr"

    Maybe you enjoy twiddling with the nitty gritty firewall port settings, but
    most people can't be arsed. They want to switch on their game, download any
    patch quickly and efficiently, and get on with it. Not screw about with the
    settings of their firewall.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Damon wrote:

    > I'd say the problem is all at your end mate, you must have the required
    > P2P port blocked as I downloaded through the default peer to peer
    > system in 10 mins and 18 seconds (according to the download interface)
    > Getting nearly 200KBPS at times.

    Lucky you.

    My take on it:

    While I see the headache that pushing 200MB patches to 4 million
    customers give, BLizzard charges it customers money to play the game and
    then stick them with Bittorrent as a distribution tool.

    It is cheap, it requires technical insight that the user should not need
    to have. In short it blows syphilitic goats.

    > The system works great and is a good way to do it for me, It's not
    > Blizzard's fault people don't use it properly.

    As a paying customer I should not have to know how to set my firewall
    settings or router ports right blah blah blah. Even connected directly,
    behind a router, behind a firewall, outside the firewall or a regular
    router DMZ I have yet to have a trouble-free patch download. I want a
    downloader that works and Blizzard refuses to give me one.

    Alternative ways (filefront etc.) work some of the time. The 1hr+ wait
    that often occurs on patch day is worth it compared to the bittorrent
    client imo. I refuse to pay for a service in order to get a patch I
    already paid for.

    I solved the problem by setting up my own patch archive for guildies. It
    should not be neccesary, but Blizzard forces me to do this.

    --
    /ray
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Kav" <bo@gya.net> wrote:

    >Sorry but what you say is bollox, it's a game, not a technical test for
    >geeks. The majority of gamers won't even care what a peer to peer network is
    >let alone know the tweaks for best performance. If Blizzard really did
    >expect users to know all this then they have serious problems with market
    >research.

    I agree. The technical knowledge, settings and requirements for
    downloading the patches should be NO DIFFERENT from what is required
    to play the game. I can play the game just fine without mucking about
    opening ports and exposing my system to the world at large. Why the
    hell should anyone have to go through extra steps - which may be very
    perplexing to non-technical people - to download the patches?

    It's asinine.

    I'm a professional programmer, which means that while I'm no expert on
    networking issues I've still got decent skills in that area. Even so,
    I don't like to modify my carefully configured network. Asking
    non-technical customers to jump through these hoops is simply stupid
    on the part of Blizzard.

    This is one area where Everquest had a better approach than WoW.
    Patches sometimes were slow to download, but they were never glacially
    slow, and the settings used to play the game were also fine to get the
    patches.


    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > I have opened myself wide open to the nasties of the net by allowing
    > all incoming connections through NAT on my ADSL router and by disabling my
    > software firewall and even then, there is no improvement. If you can tell
    > me
    > what else I have to do in order to make Blizzard's system work I would be
    > eternally grateful.

    Blizzards system? It is just a tarted up bittorrent client, with all the
    inherent strengths and weaknesses as such.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Rastus ytrede sig i <dg8slf$1l5m$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> med dette:

    >> I have opened myself wide open to the nasties of the net by allowing
    >> all incoming connections through NAT on my ADSL router and by disabling my
    >> software firewall and even then, there is no improvement. If you can tell
    >> me
    >> what else I have to do in order to make Blizzard's system work I would be
    >> eternally grateful.
    >
    >Blizzards system? It is just a tarted up bittorrent client, with all the
    >inherent strengths and weaknesses as such.

    Blizz should have let us have an option to set the ratio. I noticed that
    my download speed was going up when my upload was low, and the opposite.
    It is usually a clear indication that the upload is blocking for
    recipent packets to be sent.

    If I could set the ratio myself I would set it so I always would have a
    few kb/s free, so both download and upload would be optimised.

    Btw. I'm usually downloading the updates withing 10-20 minutes, because
    I'm doing it while the servers are still down and the problems don't
    seem to start untill after noon.
    --
    Allan Stig Kiilerich Frederiksen
    "When you try to change a mans paradigm, you must keep in mind that he
    can hear you only through the filter of the paradigm he holds."
    -Myron Tribus
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Urbin wrote:

    > I have opened myself wide open to the nasties of the net by allowing
    > all incoming connections through NAT on my ADSL router and by disabling my
    > software firewall and even then, there is no improvement. If you can tell me
    > what else I have to do in order to make Blizzard's system work I would be
    > eternally grateful.

    With my multi-pc adsl modem it is called NAPT (10.0.0.138). I have set
    the default server to my local pc ip address, but so far it has worked
    fine without it (since patch 1.5.0). I have set kerio (firewall) to
    block everything incoming that is addressed to the kerio program itself
    and get no popups during gameplay. I have set the blizzard patcher
    program to allow all protocols, incoming and outgoing connections and it
    works just fine (and no impressively fast, but fast nonetheless).

    I don't feel that I am taking any security risks, but just in case patch
    everything op your computer before you patch wow and do a thorough scan
    afterwards with e.g.
    http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/com/activescan_principal.htm or
    http://housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp (note that the
    first one gives me a lot of false spyware hits)

    The only reason I have had to configure in NAPT settings was for eMule
    (P2P). Until today my computer has never acted like a server (except
    eMule that is).

    Thomas
    --
    Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Kav wrote:
    > I work in IT and I train many different levels of people. To the average
    > gamer/person the above might as well be written "tortikdgm,fdg./
    > kjgk;lerf;ldsgf.lrdegjk.re jr;wfio;rsflhsrfhlewr"
    >
    > Maybe you enjoy twiddling with the nitty gritty firewall port settings, but
    > most people can't be arsed. They want to switch on their game, download any
    > patch quickly and efficiently, and get on with it. Not screw about with the
    > settings of their firewall.

    That's like saying the average driver can't be arsed to put oil in
    their car even though it would run much better with it.
    No one is asking them to upgrade their PC or reformat a ghard drive in
    DOS, it's a few settings. If they can change a signature file in
    outlook, they should be able to do this...it's basic stuff.

    Damon
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Lisa Horton wrote:
    > Here's a better idea: don't ask average users to learn home networking
    > in order to get their patch. And don't ask experienced users to do
    > things they know are unwise and lead to reduced security.

    Firstly it's not home networking and secondly stop waving the paranoia
    flag.
    Why would a company use a delivery system that exposed all of it's
    players to security threats and give instructions as to how to do it?

    Unwise? IF you haven't got a basic firewall, should you be online in
    the first place?

    DS
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Nick Vargish wrote:
    >
    > Let's look at the math. 4 Million subscribers, trying to download 53
    > Mb of data, probably all within a 24-hour period. That comes out to
    > about 8,833,333 Mb/hour. How many servers feeding how many pipes would
    > that amount to? For something Bliz does less than once a month?
    >

    Having that many subscribers means they have that much revenue (60
    million a month)-- which should translate to capital budget for
    distribution servers and band-width. Every other MMORPG is able to
    figure out how to patch their clients. If they don't want to spend the
    capital for distribution servers they can well afford to outsource.
    Having too many subscribers is no excuse for this level of service.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Tilvios wrote:
    > Nick Vargish wrote:
    > >
    > > Let's look at the math. 4 Million subscribers, trying to download 53
    > > Mb of data, probably all within a 24-hour period. That comes out to
    > > about 8,833,333 Mb/hour. How many servers feeding how many pipes would
    > > that amount to? For something Bliz does less than once a month?
    > >
    >
    > Having that many subscribers means they have that much revenue (60
    > million a month)-- which should translate to capital budget for
    > distribution servers and band-width. Every other MMORPG is able to
    > figure out how to patch their clients. If they don't want to spend the
    > capital for distribution servers they can well afford to outsource.
    > Having too many subscribers is no excuse for this level of service.

    The difficulty for Blizzard is that that bandwidth is only used for
    approx one day per month and the rest of the time it is useless to
    them. They obviously saw this and decided to go with a solution that
    didn't have this wasted bandwidth. I guess that they figured that file
    sharing was very popular and that BitTorrent is a widely used system so
    the average user would be able to run it with no problems. It seems
    that they were wrong.

    Also, that 60 million a month does pay for a lot more than just the
    downloads. At 8.50 GBP a month, in the UK, WoW is about 15% cheaper
    than EQ and EQ2 so you could argue that they passed the saving onto us.
    If they had implemented a more expensive download solution they would
    have had to pass that cost onto us in one way or the other. That could
    equate to a higher monthly fee or reduced conent updates. Don't forget
    that they are in this game for the money so reducing their profits
    wouldn't be an option. They did the maths before they started and
    decided that they wanted to make X per month and based the monthly fee
    on that after taking into account their costs.

    steve.kaye
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    steve.kaye wrote:
    > Tilvios wrote:
    >
    > Also, that 60 million a month does pay for a lot more than just the
    > downloads. At 8.50 GBP a month, in the UK, WoW is about 15% cheaper
    > than EQ and EQ2 so you could argue that they passed the saving onto us.
    > If they had implemented a more expensive download solution they would
    > have had to pass that cost onto us in one way or the other. That could
    > equate to a higher monthly fee or reduced conent updates. Don't forget
    > that they are in this game for the money so reducing their profits
    > wouldn't be an option. They did the maths before they started and
    > decided that they wanted to make X per month and based the monthly fee
    > on that after taking into account their costs.
    >

    I'm not familiar with Sony's products, but I did play City of Heroes.
    For the same monthly charge as I pay in WoW, I got seamless
    downloading. Somehow they figured out how to carry the increased
    bandwidth needs on patch day. The numbers are considerably smaller,
    yet the percentage of increased bandwidth need on patch day must be
    similar.

    I'm sure a company the size of Blizzard can pay for increased bandwidth
    when they need it. Actually the numbers should scale in their
    (Blizzard's) favor.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Lisa Horton <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net> writes:

    > Oh yes, I'm so eager to turn off NAT so I can forward ports, and oh yes,
    > leave that computer more vulnerable to net threats, so Blizzard can save
    > money on servers.

    You don't have to disable NAT, if you don't want to set a static IP on
    your system. "Start -> Run -> cmd.exe" Then run "ipconfig" (or is it
    "ifconfig" now?) to find out what your assigned ip is. (For XP, not
    sure about other versions of Windows.) For OS X, just open a Terminal
    window and run "ifconfig".

    Setting up port forwarding is not a security hazard, unless you have
    something vulnerable answering on those ports. I can't vouch for the
    security of Bliz's downloader, but the BitTorrent software on which
    it's based is open source and well peer-reviewed.

    > Or I can reconfigure my router twice for every patch,
    > so Blizzard can save money on servers.

    I'm not saying it's simple, but it's not hard. Millions of pr0n-hounds
    have figured out how to do it.

    Let's look at the math. 4 Million subscribers, trying to download 53
    Mb of data, probably all within a 24-hour period. That comes out to
    about 8,833,333 Mb/hour. How many servers feeding how many pipes would
    that amount to? For something Bliz does less than once a month?

    Asking the community to share this load seems like a practical
    necessity.

    > I love the game, I live with the service, but let's at least look at
    > this honestly. The only, the ONLY way Blizzard can get away with this
    > abysmal level of service is because the game really is that good.

    I'm not trying to be an apologist for Bliz, I'm just not sure how else
    they could get that much data out to that many people in a reasonable
    amount of time.

    Also, there are sites that will make the patch file available as a
    direct download... It would be interesting to find out how much of a
    load spike they suffer when a patch is released.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:

    >If you patch your system and don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook
    >Express, there is no easy way for an attacker to hack your WoW box.

    So long as we understand that "easy way" is the key term, I suppose I
    could agree with this, more or less. IE and OE aren't even close to
    being the only vulnerable points on a system - they're merely the best
    known and most common. Patching isn't proof against attack either, as
    patches only correct known issues that the developer (MS in most
    cases) has had time to address. Obviously, there are security holes
    that are unpatched - else we wouldn't need any more patches in the
    future.

    Given that most attackers are nothing more than idiot script kiddies,
    and that the few really skillful attackers out there aren't going to
    bother with small-fry like home broadband users, a well-patched system
    is reasonably safe.


    >Also remember that even software like a firewall can have critical
    >vulnerabilities. So no firewall or av software at all is theoretically
    >safer (as long as you patch).

    I can't agree with this. <Mixed metaphor alert> Unless the cure is
    worse than the disease, some protection is better than none.

    I find myself doing a lot of system setup (usually after serious
    system clean-up) for people who aren't computer geeks. For those
    installations, firewall and a/v software is absolutely vital.

    >I have never had a (malicious) program try to connect out yet and I have
    >never found an active virus (or spyware) on my system yet.

    Depends on the definition of malicious. One could argue that any
    program which attempts to 'phone home' without good reason is
    malicious. I've never had spyware, adware or viruses try it on my
    system, but that's because I have never had that kind of malware
    infection in the first place.


    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Urbin <urbin@dunmorogh.eu> wrote:

    >[my computer] runs the game I bought from them perfectly well I do
    >not see why they cannot provide an update mechanism that works
    >with the exact same setup.

    Precisely. That is the issue the naysayers in this thread keep
    pointedly ignoring. The game plays fine without any special network
    setup requirements - no need to open ports or disable firewalls or
    jump through flaming hoops. The patching mechanism ought to work
    within those Exact Same Parameters.


    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Nick Vargish <nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> wrote:

    >Let's look at the math. 4 Million subscribers, trying to download 53
    >Mb of data, probably all within a 24-hour period. That comes out to
    >about 8,833,333 Mb/hour. How many servers feeding how many pipes would
    >that amount to? For something Bliz does less than once a month?

    While I won't dispute your math, it's worth noting that Everquest does
    exactly this with their patch system. Or at least they did when I was
    a subscriber a year or so ago. Patching EQ could indeed be slow, but
    it never required that I change my network setup to get a patch.

    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Damon a écrit :
    > Kav wrote:
    >
    >>I work in IT and I train many different levels of people. To the average
    >>gamer/person the above might as well be written "tortikdgm,fdg./
    >>kjgk;lerf;ldsgf.lrdegjk.re jr;wfio;rsflhsrfhlewr"
    >>
    >>Maybe you enjoy twiddling with the nitty gritty firewall port settings, but
    >>most people can't be arsed. They want to switch on their game, download any
    >>patch quickly and efficiently, and get on with it. Not screw about with the
    >>settings of their firewall.
    >
    >
    > That's like saying the average driver can't be arsed to put oil in
    > their car even though it would run much better with it.
    > No one is asking them to upgrade their PC or reformat a ghard drive in
    > DOS, it's a few settings. If they can change a signature file in
    > outlook, they should be able to do this...it's basic stuff.
    >
    > Damon
    >


    I followed the instructions on the Blizzard site and everything seems to
    work fine for me; 15 minutes to download, 25minutes to install... gave
    me time to prepare dinner :-)
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > As a paying customer I should not have to know how to set my firewall
    > settings or router ports right blah blah blah. Even connected directly,
    > behind a router, behind a firewall, outside the firewall or a regular
    > router DMZ I have yet to have a trouble-free patch download. I want a
    > downloader that works and Blizzard refuses to give me one.

    Wah Wah Wah.

    Blizzard sell you a game. They are in now way resposible for your computer,
    your router or any other piece of software on your computer.

    Your computer and your network is the complete and utter responsibility of
    yourself and no-one else.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > You can of course argue that I am a dipwit who is to bloody stupid to set
    > up
    > his network properly and there isn't really much I can do to counter this
    > argument :-)

    You see straight to the crux of the issue. Of course for some reason you
    then continued...

    ^_^
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > I agree with both points of view. If you patch your system and don't use
    > Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, there is no easy way for an
    > attacker to hack your WoW box.

    I use both these all the time on a DMZ box without a firewall or AV program.
    Since I started using computers on the C64 I have had one virus. It was a
    blaster virus on a new 2000 install which got in before I had a chance to
    patch. All it takes is common sense and a willingness to take ownership of
    all the problems that keeping a computer running implies.

    The thickest tinfoil hat in the world won't protect a person who is too
    stupid to not run double click on a file to find out why their "email
    account has been suspended".
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games