Printable View
More or less, no? They have kept going on about how excited they are about it, and how big of a step up it would be from anything they'd done previously.
I don't know if they've actually used the word revolutionary, but they have certainly hyped it...
Then if there's no evidence suggesting that they've done anything other than boast about how they've gone a big step up since the previous battle.net, I think it's only fair people stop putting words in their mouth, saying they claimed it'd be revolutionary.
Sigh, replace revolutionary with *insert hype buzzword* then? I was not trying to be disingenuous, maybe the specific word choice of revolutionary is something branded about more by the gaming press than Blizzard, but don't try to tell me they haven't built Bnet 2.0 up...
why couldn't they just have public locations that you can join if you want? I don't see the problem.
And is it not a huge leap over WC3? Battle.net is not just for pro-gamers and wannabe pro-gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenArbiter
1. Automated Match Making is vastly improved. They even brought in a professor to work on their new algorithms.
2. Lots of new leagues to help separate players into groups of similar skill levels.
3. Achievements for singleplayer, multiplayer and custom maps.
4. Vastly improved friends list and communication options. Cross Blizzard game communication.
5. Heaps of stats to help inform you on what parts of your game are lacking.
6. Avatars and Decals that you earn through Achievements to let you customize your battle.net identity.
7. Parties you can form so that you can join games together and easily find each other after a game. (you'll remain in the party)
8. Powerful map filter system to find what types of games you are looking for fast and easily.
9. Marketplace for maps to be easily downloaded by new players. No more joining a game and getting booted because you don't have the map.
And as for you liking to create new accounts so that you can just beat up on noobs. That is the exact reason they are only allowing one account per game, to stop people like you from ruining the fun for new players.
They didn't say they aren't going to have public areas. They just haven't finalized plans for them yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKiller
No, no, no, no I don't like to create new accounts so I can beat up on noobs. I like to create new accounts because I think it's boring to use the same one every season, so normally I create a new account at the start of every ladder season (at which point ALL stats are wiped anyway, so everyone starts from 0).
As an example:
Season 5 of PGTour I used the ID MorningStar
Season 6 of PGTour I used the ID JinrO (which I actually used in Seaosn 7 as well)
I want my ELL (expected ladder level) to be tied to my master account, so that if I make a new account I can AVOID playing noobs - I want to play people better than me at all times if possible.
Anyway, on to the list:
1 - Good.
2 - Good.
3 - Don't care.
4 - We already have this. The only game I can't communicate with is WoW :) You can already message someone in WC3 from SC, hell, even someone in WC2.
5 - Not bad, WC3 has this too tho, but not bad.
6 - Fine but not really vital :)
7 - Good, but not too different from Arranged Team which exists in WC3 already.
8 - Fantastic, one of the things I'm most happy about.
9 - Good.
I still think this (when I say this, I mean the way they showed off Bnet 2.0 at blizzcon) is a letdown because it's missing some BASIC features (online replays, chat channels, waaaghtv), and they didn't go into much detail about the features I'm excited about (the leagues).
I'm not saying it's "all bad", I'm just saying I had higher expectations.
Yeah but they said they won't have it for launch.. I think they should implement temporary public channels just so Bnet doesn't feel so empty at launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
That would, btw, make me completely happy to wait for whatever they have planned - it's just that before that we get nothing, which makes me a little annoyed.
Here's what someone said on TL, which is 100% what I feel:
Quote:
On August 23 2009 12:16 ReS wrote:
I don't want it to be an xbox live type of system where you get to a screen to select what type of game you want and then it just says "searching for players" and you join up with random people. Sometimes you just want to chill in the channel and chat with some friends, or go to another clan channel, etc. The community aspect is what helped Blizzard's previous games to be a success and still be played today.
You can message people no matter what realm they're on. We don't currently have that.Quote:
4 - We already have this. The only game I can't communicate with is WoW You can already message someone in WC3 from SC, hell, even someone in WC2.
Merged Chat Channels and No Chat Lobbies is FAIL (BNet2.0) threads.