Local WoW server a possibility?

Not everyone registered under South Africa. I know a lot of people that registered under UK adress to make use of RAF.
 
I'm amazed at the negative attitude that 90% of the posters here have towards the idea of a server in South Africa.

If iGame are prepared to try and make it happen, why aren't we supporting them instead of openly smearing their reputation?! It just makes no sense to me. :confused:
 
StNick said:
I'm amazed at the negative attitude that 90% of the posters here have towards the idea of a server in South Africa.

If iGame are prepared to try and make it happen, why aren't we supporting them instead of openly smearing their reputation?! It just makes no sense to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

Its about being realistic. As mentioned in this thread already, blizzard have not even located a server for the Australians, there is definitely no hope for us. igame as just trying to gain unfounded publicity, cheap.

and if it makes no sense to you go and read all the comments again perhaps it will start to be clearer.

And igame is a subsidiary of iburst, and iburst has the worst customer reputation by far, which further more like we have said blizzard will take into light.
 
FormerBlizzardGM said:
And I agree that the best we can hope for is a nice peering server. Kind of an official proxy server which has good local bandwidh and excellent quality bandwidth to the WoW servers in the EU or the US. Blizzard would most likely put us with the Europeans as the time zone is pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

That's a solution that would work wonders. Performance tuned local server that operates in one of two ways:
  • Data replication but this could be far too expensive now. Could change with the new east coast submarine cables
  • Local proxy for an international wow server that has an optimised connection to the master.

I like the local proxy option as this would allow South Africans to use local bandwidth to play Wow and also ensure a reliable connection on the international leg of the route.
 
wow4life said:
That's a solution that would work wonders. Performance tuned local server that operates in one of two ways:
  • Data replication but this could be far too expensive now. Could change with the new east coast submarine cables
  • Local proxy for an international wow server that has an optimised connection to the master.

I like the local proxy option as this would allow South Africans to use local bandwidth to play Wow and also ensure a reliable connection on the international leg of the route.
Click to expand...

The route would need to be a tunneled connection like those ping services, which would cause more over head. We have just to many hops currently to intentional peering links.
 
semaphore said:
Its about being realistic. As mentioned in this thread already, blizzard have not even located a server for the Australians, there is definitely no hope for us.
Click to expand...

What a laugh... "Being realistic"?! Please. If you don't think it's a possibility, that's fine. But why go and drag the company down for TRYING to improve the situation for everyone in South Africa?

semaphore said:
igame as just trying to gain unfounded publicity, cheap.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone has a personal vendetta against iBurst / iGame and is using this thread to try and get his message across. THAT is "cheap".
 
Last edited:
StNick said:
What a laugh... "Being realistic"?! Please. If you don't think it's a possibility, that's fine. But why go and drag the company down for TRYING to improve the situation for everyone in South Africa?



Sounds like someone has a personal vendetta against iBurst / iGame and is using this thread to try and get his message across. THAT is "cheap".
Click to expand...

Well count me in if you want to label people as having a personal vendetta against a company.

First off, what Semaphore says could be true, and makes sense if you think about it. how do movie stars get publicity? they do **** like cocaine and get caught, or hookers, or surface a porn movie or cut off their hair.

Insta-advertising. And what do you know, 6 months later they release a new movie/music video/album or whatever.

Same applies.

I'm realistic. But I'm in no ways going to praise a company for trying to make things better when I know that we've been struggling to catch the attention of Blizzard since 5 years BEFORE WoW was even released.

I think they're half-assing this and they don't know what they're getting themselves into and their subsidiary company has proved to me over and over again that this is the case.

I will be pleasantly suprised if something does come off of this, like I said, I'm in full support of a peering server and if the guys can pull it off I'd eat my hat with a smile.

The constant dissapointment of promises made by these companies make people cynical. Yes sure, we're cynical, and your label of having a personal vendetta against the company is a bit ****ed up in my opinion.

Read what others have said, look at the issue from both sides and then think again. Sure, being negative about this won't help, but being ignorantly positive about it without knowing the company background or what has happened in the past AND their track record including the high standard Blizzard has will be a bit daft as well.

So take it for what it is. I wait with bated breath for Blizzard's feedback on the situation. I bet you we won't hear anything for at least another 6 months and then the story will die a silent death and we would've lost AGAIN.
 
Oh and just to add on. iGame/iBurst is not the first company to promise the world and then dissapoint. Huge publicity and then nothing happens and you hear nothing forever and ever. Like I said... we'll see. Maybe its imminent ;)
 
okay a bit off topic but what is the average amount of players on a server?
 
Can't say that for sure but on the old servers you would see about 8-10k people/accounts. Well I would be happy for you guys that a local server would be here but I also see everything realistic and if Blizz dows want to have 40k people you'll never get it.
 
ronald911 said:
So Blizz wants a minimum of 40 000 people??? Thats a bit of an over population for a South african WoW server as there hardly are 40000 people in South africa with home internet that will play World Of Warcraft.

But my view is, Blizzard wont really lose anything to give IGame a chance to create an Official Local server. Surely they can make it something Like a Beta at first, where regular Retail SA players can get transferred to the WoW servers to test out the latency, uptime and overall performance. Then obviously launch the real thing.

If its a success, Blizzard can get a good impression of the server and maybe decide to employ a gm, and add some support like the Europe servers.
Click to expand...

Didnt someone say that there where 40000 on private servers ?? I doubt there where more than 100. As you point out, do that many even have a home internet connection?
 
Well just what I thought now (dont shout at me if its a stupid idea :P):
If there really wont be a local server, Blizzard can maybe add some sort of mirror for south africa which enable you to play with local cap on EU servers. And maybe add a built in Lag reducer similar to gamemax.

As I said, just a though....
 
I'm holding thumbs for peering server, think that will be best option and most likely solution.

tinman or whoever, any updates on Blizz communication?
 
WiT8litZ said:
I'm holding thumbs for peering server, think that will be best option and most likely solution.

tinman or whoever, any updates on Blizz communication?
Click to expand...

There's probably no comms from them and won't be for ...mmm... never? </publicitystunt>
 
A peer server- as in a real 'standalone' serv with 20ms-50m
hosted on igame hardware and staff, blizz will have *no cost.*
blizz will also not have to do any thing, 40k is for a 'full' not a peer serv, a full serv would have a blizz branch and that is what they are* saying no to. Blizz is considering a peer serv that is the real deal but* not run by them but a peer serv stating it is not ran by blizz. This has been done www.war3.co.za is a peer serv, leggal by blizz for those who did not know.
 
The information in the article is confusing, they say they host about 20 000 players per server, but for them to open a server for us, we MUST have 40 000 players?
so they wont host 1 server until we have enough players to populate 2?

interesting
" additional instances cannot be launched at this time, please try again later"
 
Empiricism Philosopher said:
A peer server- as in a real 'standalone' serv with 20ms-50m
hosted on igame hardware and staff, blizz will have *no cost.*
blizz will also not have to do any thing, 40k is for a 'full' not a peer serv, a full serv would have a blizz branch and that is what they are* saying no to. Blizz is considering a peer serv that is the real deal but* not run by them but a peer serv stating it is not ran by blizz. This has been done www.war3.co.za is a peer serv, leggal by blizz for those who did not know.
Click to expand...

Saying war3.co.za is legal?
 
war3.co.za is definitely not legal or otherwise you wouldn't be needing to run the w3loader to access it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X