|
I found an article in this months pcpowerplay about the new battle.net. Nothing groundbreaking yet, but there wasnt a thread on bnet speculations so i made this.
"Before the announcement of Diablo III, the Diablo related channels of Battle.net were fairly quiet. Hours later, they were jam-packed with players reacquainting themselves with one of PC’s most fondly remembered IPs.
Yet Battle.net is a creaky service indeed. Yes, it’s free, but it still lags far behind the online offerings from Xbox Live! and even some of the features of steam.
Blizzard promises a complete rejuvenation of Battle.net – which they already refer to as Battle.net 2 – to coincide with the launch of Starcraft II.
Specific details? Sadly, Blizzard remains quiet, and the reaction to the colour scheme in Diablo III won’t fill the developer with confidence when it comes to announcing actual important stuff like anti-cheating systems.
But we’re promised a much more sophisticated player-finding service, as well as the full suite of features we now take for granted elsewhere. Finding friends, organising matches, reserving space, filtering noobs, it’s all on the to-do list.
To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so.
The new Battle.net will also be more explicitly tuned to what Blizzard calls “e-sports” or professional tournaments. The existing ladder system is very mature, so it remains to see this fleshed out and integrated with the burgeoning spectator side of professional play. Starcraft II tournament championships, in real time, on your PC, in engine, only a few clicks away? Yes please!"
There is also another rumour that the new battle.net won't be able to interact with the old ones.
here
Blizzard will announce new bnet features when Starcraft 2 goes into beta.
+ Show Spoiler +
Are there any other rumours I'm missing?
|
Hopefully they code some sort of AI that can analyze how people play. If a new account is managing their economy very well, attacking expertly, has a fairly decent APM and wins their first game, then they shouldn't be playing the other new accounts who sloppily play and win their first game by luck. Those two players will have the same rank after one game, but they shouldn't play each other in auto-matchmaking.
As long as Bnet2 has a nice UI, a good system for clans and tournaments, intelligent auto-matchmaking and a more useful/responsive listing of games... I'll be a happy player.
|
They better do something about the empty gamelist screen lag.
|
On July 24 2008 11:32 alien3456 wrote:
Hopefully they code some sort of AI that can analyze how people play. If a new account is managing their economy very well, attacking expertly, has a fairly decent APM and wins their first game, then they shouldn't be playing the other new accounts who sloppily play and win their first game by luck. Those two players will have the same rank after one game, but they shouldn't play each other in auto-matchmaking.
lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_ladder
|
While attending Blizzcon 07', I recall Pardo (Pretty sure it was Pardo, I don't fully remember) stating that the Starcraft 2 Battle.net's features will be comparable to the difference between the original Starcraft Battle.net and Warcraft III Battle.net. As you know, this is quite a big jump. Let's hope they follow through with it. I'm sure they will. =)
|
I don't see how they'd fix the pros making new names and smashing issue. When I ultimately rule the BW2 scene and my brother decides he wants to get into it, is he gonna be forced to play other good people just because of how many hours are spent on the game?
|
Battle.net 2.0 is almost just as exciting as StarCraft 2 itself. I can't wait for the new features.
"To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so."
I think it would be acceptable to charge a $10 (shut up! it's just ten bucks, jeez get over it) fee to register a Battle.net account. Allow players to change their gaming id, but their account is tied to their email and the statics tied to the account, not their gaming id.
It would certainly reduce the amount of people who just create new names spontaneously. And a convenient way for Blizzard to make some cash.
|
Hopefully smurfs are dealt with in the same manner as War3...
The first game is unpredictable, the system can't know who's supposed to be good and who isn't.
But every game thereafter the system can make fairly good guesses... If you keep winning, you'll keep playing people with better and better records. In War3 (at least, it used to be) if you went about 10 or 15-0, you'd be then playing the best players on the ladder. If they lost, they didn't lose that much rating (I don't think), but if you won, you would gain a lot. If you kept on winning, technically you're one of the "best" players, so the system will keep giving you bonus rating, eventually you'll reach the top of the ladder and voila!
The same goes for the opposite direction. If you win some and lose some, then the system is working. It wants to pair you up with people of near equal skill.
Of course, sometimes it can take several games before you reach your niche, but that's fine...
I can foresee some people bashing War3's ladder, particularly in regards to search times... This is mainly due to inactivity of the ladder, it's not really a flaw in the system. At least, I think so...
|
I don't think limiting accounts or having the same stats on all your accounts is a good idea. There's a need for auto-matchmaking, but there's also a need for regular melee games. On top of that, there's a need for anonymity. If you only have one set of stats, even in AMM you're kind of screwed. What if you want to play two races at two different levels? You'll never improve your worst race if you're stuck at the higher level that your wins from your best race put you at. And multiple accounts also allows Blizzard not to have to worry about anonymity. Just get a new account if someone is harassing you, and Blizzard doesn't have to control a million immature 13 year olds as much. If ban works by ip address/cd key, and especially if it allows you to save a list of blacklisted players/ips, then you don't have to worry about smurfs. They have little impact on AMM games because they'll quickly move up in rank if they are good, and everyone has to start at the same rank for his first game, whether he plays like Sea or Craftmatic2.
|
I think it would be acceptable to charge a $10 (shut up! it's just ten bucks, jeez get over it) fee to register a Battle.net account.
If they charged a one time fee, I would begrudgingly pay it. But if it was monthly, I would drop out of school, make a sign and protest naked outside of Blizzard's headquarters.
|
Loved the Craftmatic2 reference 
But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
|
On July 24 2008 11:59 Hawk wrote:
I don't see how they'd fix the pros making new names and smashing issue. When I ultimately rule the BW2 scene and my brother decides he wants to get into it, is he gonna be forced to play other good people just because of how many hours are spent on the game?
make it cost money
that is...
On July 24 2008 12:04 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Battle.net 2.0 is almost just as exciting as StarCraft 2 itself. I can't wait for the new features. Show nested quote +"To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so." I think it would be acceptable to charge a $10 (shut up! it's just ten bucks, jeez get over it) fee to register a Battle.net account. Allow players to change their gaming id, but their account is tied to their email and the statics tied to the account, not their gaming id. It would certainly reduce the amount of people who just create new names spontaneously. And a convenient way for Blizzard to make some cash.
OR you can just tie to to each CD key. The bnet price is in the cost of the game
|
On July 24 2008 13:30 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Loved the Craftmatic2 reference But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Because Blizzard is legally liable for online harassment on their servers. The more trivial ways they have for people to avoid harassment (like making a new account), the better they are from a legal standpoint. Internet harassment laws are becoming stricter (and criminal), and more often-enforced.
And even with squelch, a stalker can still follow you around as much as he wants.
|
From a legal standpoint, I am of the opinion that whining boo-hoo'ers should shut the fuck up. No offense intended.
|
On July 24 2008 13:48 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 13:30 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Loved the Craftmatic2 reference But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Because Blizzard is legally liable for online harassment on their servers. The more trivial ways they have for people to avoid harassment (like making a new account), the better they are from a legal standpoint. Internet harassment laws are becoming stricter (and criminal), and more often-enforced. And even with squelch, a stalker can still follow you around as much as he wants.
How can a stalker follow you around? If certain basic features like banning someone from your non-AMM game then I don't see this being a problem. They could give you more than squelch features, like a big /fuckyou command that bans them from your games, squelches, and prevents them from hearing what you say, all in one command. If they only have one name also, they can't really stalk you then can they?
|
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no RTS/FPS PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
|
On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
MMO's? :/
|
On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
Not a continuous payment. Just a one-off cost to purchase an account.... It's really not that big of a deal.
|
This is what I am looking forward to most about sc2, the new b.net. Hoping for all the new features and bug fixes (because that shit is so annoying, Black list anyone?).The reason why this is the main thing i'm waiting for is because even if the new games suck at least bw will have the new bnet! ^_-
|
On July 24 2008 12:05 SoleSteeler wrote:
Hopefully smurfs are dealt with in the same manner as War3...
The first game is unpredictable, the system can't know who's supposed to be good and who isn't.
But every game thereafter the system can make fairly good guesses... If you keep winning, you'll keep playing people with better and better records. In War3 (at least, it used to be) if you went about 10 or 15-0, you'd be then playing the best players on the ladder. If they lost, they didn't lose that much rating (I don't think), but if you won, you would gain a lot. If you kept on winning, technically you're one of the "best" players, so the system will keep giving you bonus rating, eventually you'll reach the top of the ladder and voila!
The same goes for the opposite direction. If you win some and lose some, then the system is working. It wants to pair you up with people of near equal skill.
Of course, sometimes it can take several games before you reach your niche, but that's fine...
I can foresee some people bashing War3's ladder, particularly in regards to search times... This is mainly due to inactivity of the ladder, it's not really a flaw in the system. At least, I think so...
The system does nothing to prevent smurfing at all. If anything it causes more frequent smurfing.
An example:
Average players:
1.14 AMM:
Player goes 25-0 solo, realizes he had reached skill level where he can no longer win easily, makes new account.
1.15 AMM
Player goes 10-0 solo, loses, makes new account.
Good players:
1.14 AMM:
Player goes 25-0 solo, stops playing bad players and then proceeds to find games against moderately skilled opponents, then eventually other good players.
1.15 AMM:
Player goes 15-0 solo, has to search for 30 minutes to 2 hours to find a game. Makes new account or stops laddering (or waits).
Obviously it does not work for Warcraft III. Even if Starcraft 2 has 20x the user base (it will), the very best players (lets say some Koreans play on east) will only be able to match each other with the new AMM, since it has such a low range of matching. With the old AMM he would be able to match a range of players and would not wait. An Orc player named Zacard went 150-2 solo on Azeroth in 1.14, he wouldn't be able to find a game after 50-0 most likely with the new AMM.
Anyways, I'm positive Blizzard will incorporate a Valve like system for the new Battle.net that at the very least ties cd keys to one e-mail address (look at the new Blizzard store if that's any indication).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
