SC:L Article - Battle.net 2.0 Concerns

[n00bonicPlague]

It's not just my wall of text. ^_^ The staff contributed as a whole, and to some significant degree without your knowledge, the community.

Oh I know. I'm just talking about that one part where it said you fell asleep at the wheel. Good thing you managed to stay on the road

btw, has this been linked on the official forums yet? If it hasn't, I'd like to do the honors.

[protoswarrior]

lol me first!!

j/k I suggested it, but so far the response about consumption seems scromptuous to say the least

I don't care really, but if you want to go ahead, otherwise I will do it with pleasure!

** crackles knuckles **

[unknownone]

I've just finished reading this wonderful article! It's very well written and clear. I've found that I agree with everything you wrote and I've found some issues that I've hadn't thought about. Thank you for this piece and for having synthesized our common concerns.
Getting on topic I think that the current friend system isn't flexible enough and requires you to share too much info. I've liked your suggestion on using Name.Account because this way I can have many aliases, but still be unique in every Blizzard's game. It should be enough for making stable friends in a game and have an option in your battle.net account to choose if have the same list of friend in all your games and for all your aliases or to filter someone out as you wish.
Second I think your widget idea for the home page is good and I'll suggest to make some info mandatory for everyone, as patch info, game news, blizzard news, tournaments. Maybe have a list with your friends online would be great too.
Lastly I fully agree that custom maps system needs an effective search and filtering system and that it could be categorized in an evolving way. Now Blizzard already knows which are the most common types in SC and WC3 and then, when new maps get popular, they can add more types.

[n00bonicPlague]

Posted it here:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...74495&sid=5000

[spychi]

I'd like to just say thanks to those who worked on this article and adressed my concerns in a more polite way that I would do it.
Thanks and I hope it will work

[Genopath]

Very good read, grats to all SC:L staff who put effort into that. I am hoping Blizzard QA department will take a look at it.

[Alar]

I'm still so disappointed in the direction Blizzard chose to go with Battle.net 2.0. I was expecting all the same features from the old version with just more new goodies and a cool new interface. Seems I was wrong.

Very nice article.

[Hamshank]

I feel like I've just read the ramblings of a mastermind, which is both good and bad.
Length was very excessive, should have been trimmed dramatically. Live and learn, please don't do that in the future.

However, in the end the article still is the best analysis of B.NET 2 out there, if you can read through it. Nothing was left untouched, I hope someone at Blizz gets to this.

[rise]

Length was very excessive, should have been trimmed dramatically. Live and learn, please don't do that in the future.

While you are correct in that it could have been reduced further, the reality is that this article is detailed. Consequently, the addition of details comes with length. We haven't "lived and learned," for this article is highly intentional; we made conscious decisions about length. I feel that some aspects of this article remain a little too explicit and extensive, but that is the reality of productions of this size.

[TheEconomist]

Props for typing this up. You're doing an important job to make sure Blizzard understands what we need and how much we want it.