Curse

Syndren · Dec 09, 2006, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Ok lets say you don't do it after every update... but you'll have like 5 cds of the .dat file but only 1 will be useful.

Series · Dec 09, 2006, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndren

Ok lets say you don't do it after every update... but you'll have like 5 cds of the .dat file but only 1 will be useful.

When you burn something onto a CDR, you can't burn anything else onto it. So in that case, you would have 5 cds of the .dat file and only one will be useful... with patches, you'd have 5 cds of patches. There is no difference. Think about it...

*A new update is released*

Person A installs the update and backs up the DAT file to CDR.

Person B downloads the patch and backs up the patch, plus all the old patches probably (so that you don't need to hold onto 50 CDRs), to CDR.

Then when a new update is released...

Person A installs the update and backs up the DAT file to CDR, then throws out the old outdated one.

Person B downloads the patch and backs up the patch, plus all the old patches probably (so that you don't need to hold onto 50 CDRs), to CDR, then throws out the old outdated one.

With the patches, only 1 CDR will be useful unless you want to put every single patch on its own CD, in which case you will need to keep track of every CDR and that's pointless. And don't say something like "well you can wait a few patches then back them up" because you can wait a few updates then back the .dat file up. gg

Kong · Dec 09, 2006, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndren

Ok lets say you don't do it after every update... but you'll have like 5 cds of the .dat file but only 1 will be useful.

You've never heard of Re-Writeable CDs and DVDs?

I'm not trying to be negative, as i'm sure some others replaying aren't, but it seems like you haven't fully thought this through. The current system works perfectly and as intended. It is very easy to back up the .dat file to prevent downloading everything else. Yes you'll still need to update the execultable and the odd little other thing, but you will be saving plenty of time.

And yes, using re-writeable discs will save you plenty of time and money from having multiple discs lying around. And yes if you dont' have a DVD burner you can use regular CDs. You'll just have to create a multi part archive with winzip or winrar, and burn those separately to the cds.

Copy files from cds to folder on the computer, extract the .dat and away you go.

Syndren · Dec 10, 2006, 01:56 AM // 01:56

I'll explain my example more clearly (with the CD-RW or DVD-RW situation included in brackets..might as well address both at the same time):

Situation A)
-Person burns patch #1 onto a cd (Usually for patches you don't have v1.00-1.25 then on the 1.26 patch you have to slap on the 1.00-1.25 patch then the 1.26 on top of that)
-After an amount of time the person then burns the 1.56 patch on a second cd (or if its a CD-RW then added on or overwriting the first cd)

We can agree that a patch file is a lot smaller than burning a 3gb .dat file right? So burning the patches would take a lot smaller time.

Situation B)
-Person gets a couple of new updates added on their .dat file
-Burns a CD (well with the size of the .dat file atm it would be a DVD) of the .dat file (we'll debate only about the .dat file.. not the .exe file)
-A couple of new updates later and that same person wants to backup again.
-Brings out a new DVD (or DVD-RW) and burns the whole 3gb+ again.

This is an add-on and for some reason I feel that people aren't really getting that. Lets use D2 (or NWN) for an example.
After installing D2 (or NWN) and patching it (via update console or download able patch [I am suggesting both these services become available]) would you burn/(copy over to your external HDD) the _whole_ D2 folder? Or would you keep your original D2 cd and backup the patch files? To me it seems like a no brainer.

ok sorry for this next line of this post but since Series put in 'gg' I have to do this:
wtfomglolntroflgg
Just using a 'gg' after an argument where you didn't even give me a chance to respond is just plain annoying.

Kong · Dec 10, 2006, 04:06 AM // 04:06

Even how you explain it there, it doesn't change anything.

You want to take a good system, a working system and go back to an older out of date system that relies on people to think for them selves, no offence to anyone.

Even if they did, which would be stupid, you'd have people looking all over the place to get the updates, updates being hosting on unoffical mirrors that contain spyware, and then there will be the people who simply dont' read and can't figure out why when they try to connect to the servers it tells them to update thier game.

The current system is perfect. It needs no changes, and sorry but you will likely never convince anyone otherwise.

Achilles Antony · Dec 10, 2006, 04:11 AM // 04:11

No offense, but your idea is stupid and would never work for a game that is updated as often as Guild Wars. Could you imagine the size of the patches? Could you imagine how many patch files you would have accumulated from the time Prophecies was released until now? The system they have now is the way it is so that they can update the game whenever they want or need to. It works, so why don't we just leave it at that, ok?

Kong · Dec 10, 2006, 04:15 AM // 04:15

Your main argument seems to be the size of the .dat file and backing it up, but that should only be done if you are going to reinstall or install on another computer. It doesn't need to be done all the time.

Syndren · Dec 10, 2006, 05:01 AM // 05:01

Holy! Read what I type read!
This is an add-on suggestion that will go side-by-side with the current system
Ok read it once
now read it again
now read it a third time.

I don't know how many times I have typed this but it seems like everyone is just ignoring it.
This suggestion does not roll back the current system but adds on to it. If you don't like it then don't use it. I am just frustrated how many times I have mentioned it and everyone seems to ignore it.
If D2, NWN, WOW, etc have both systems implemented then why can't GW? I think it would be a great addition to have both systems working. Not one, but both.

A couple of expansions from now if you guys want to reinstall the game don't complain about re-downloading all the content from square one.

Anyways I am asking a mod to close this thread since there is no support for this suggestion and everyone seems to be ignoring all the times I mention this is an add-on and not a replacement I forgot why I post here to begin with...

Undivine · Dec 10, 2006, 05:10 AM // 05:10

Closing this thread as the original poster requested.