View Full Version : Battle.net 2.0 predictions
Blizzard has been touting the new Battle.net 2.0 to debut with Starcraft II and eventually extend to Diablo III.
I suspect it has to be a standalone Windows application that runs in parallel with the games. I'm not sure if anything official has been announced, but here are some core features I'd wager we can expect:
one universal account, tied to all CD keys
integrated IM (including in-game)
voice chat
player quick matching
friend lists/features
Warden anti-cheat measures
anti-piracy measures
hardware datamining (system specs)
digital distribution (games/demos)
It will basically be Steam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(content_delivery)), Warden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_(software)), and XFire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfire)rolled into one package. Will it be free? You bet. The anti-piracy and digital distribution features alone will make it worth it to Blizzard. Will they force it on people who only play SP/LAN games? Probably. Will all these features be available at launch? I wouldn't be surprised.
In the future, I wouldn't put it past Blizzard to full-on compete with Steam by extending the service to non-Blizzard games, starting with Activision titles. It would sure explain their excitement about it.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 22:32
Piracy is a non-issue for online games. ;)
Voicechat? Doubt it. WoW ingame voice chat is BAD. REAL BAD. Nobody uses it. ;)
one universal account, tied to all CD keys
No, it's won't. Forcing people with only one CDkey to account share is bad. People want to play Starcraft or Diablo from internet cafes, they might not where you live, but they do where I live.
integrated IM (including in-game)
I'm not sure what you mean by this, the current Bnet has the ability to chat with friends or whatever. I'm not sure what other IM functionality it can have.
voice chat
I'd rather it doesn't. It would only lag the servers, most use TS/Ventrilo/Skype anyway.
player quick matching
I'm not sure what this is, maybe it's only for Starcraft?
friend lists/features
It already has that.
Warden anti-cheat measures
Probably, but I hope Blizz will concentrate more on making the game less hackable than hopeing on Warden to catch cheaters after the fact. Banning the CDkey of the guy that duped doesn't help me at all since the duped items still exist if they were muled to other accounts.
anti-piracy measures
You can only play on Bnet with an original CDkey, so it already has that.
hardware datamining (system specs)
What? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd rather Blizzard keep its nose out of my hardware data.
digital distribution (games/demos)
Perhaps, but I kind of doubt it. Blizzard is only one company, it has no interest in giving other companies access to their fans.
From what you've just said, I prefer the original.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 23:34
What? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd rather Blizzard keep its nose out of my hardware data.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=3F807935A3DDD43A48EDCEB49E6 E1534.app05_06?topicId=8202605821&sid=1
Blizzard is using personal info. They also gather your pc specs. At least for WoW. I doubt they won't do that with D3. ;)
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=3F807935A3DDD43A48EDCEB49E6 E1534.app05_06?topicId=8202605821&sid=1
Blizzard is using personal info. They also gather your pc specs. At least for WoW. I doubt they won't do that with D3. ;)
WoW ... I did not know that. Is that new? That seems pretty shaddy to me as a practice.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 23:49
I dunno. The PC spec gathering are probably done from the start of WoW, but don't quote me on that. As for personal info, that really is bad practice, imo, but if I read it correctly they are not selling it to other companies. They just use them internal, for the whole Activision Blizzard.
IIRC, warden even scans your browser and reads the title. I think, though, that he won't send that info back. Rather, it compares it to some database. So if you browser WoW hax0r sites you might get in trouble. ;) There was a large outcry on the WoW-GD after this discovery.
Piracy is a non-issue for online games.
But both Starcraft II and Diablo III will be playable offline, which is why anti-piracy measures can make a difference in this case (where it doesn't in WoW/Bnet now).
Forcing people with only one CDkey to account share is bad. People want to play Starcraft or Diablo from internet cafes, they might not where you live, but they do where I live.
Universal accounts don't preclude internet cafe use, you'd simply login to the Battle.net 2.0 client with your account and have access to all games you've purchased (that are also installed on the computer). The main difference might be that you will need to have purchased a key (digitally or otherwise) at some point in order for this to work. They could alter the client for internet cafe owners as well, which has been done before (https://cafe.steampowered.com/index.php?area=cafe/cafeHome).
I'm not sure what you mean by this [integrated IM], the current Bnet has the ability to chat with friends or whatever. I'm not sure what other IM functionality it can have.
Many features will be the same as the current Bnet, with minor extensions. An example of a difference here could be that when in-game, you could carry on texting with a friend who is in another server instance. Also, the texting session could be maintained separately from the game, so you could still text with someone who has left the game, but is not yet signed out of Battle.net.
I'd rather it doesn't [have voice chat]. It would only lag the servers, most use TS/Ventrilo/Skype anyway.
The voice chat may end up being low quality, but I'd still bet money the feature will be present. It doesn't lag servers unless people use it, and even then it will probably be comparable to a 3rd party solution.
I'm not sure what [player quick matching] is, maybe it's only for Starcraft?
There may be a better name for it, but yes, it's easier to implement for Starcraft. Basically the idea of pairing up random matches with people of equal skill level. They could probably use some form of it with Diablo III, perhaps in PvP or based on time played (so you don't have beginners joining games intended for experienced Baal-runners).
Probably, but I hope Blizz will concentrate more on making the game less hackable than hopeing on Warden to catch cheaters after the fact. Banning the CDkey of the guy that duped doesn't help me at all since the duped items still exist if they were muled to other accounts.
I hope so too, but unfortunately no matter how well made any game is there are just too many ways to subvert it (even with something like Warden running). WoW has given them a lot of valuable experience in this area, so let's hope it all translates to Diablo III.
What? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd rather Blizzard keep its nose out of my hardware data.
That is exactly what I mean. In the past, it was optional when patching a game - the checkbox that reads "Submit my non-personal information to Blizzard" (or something like that). I don't like it either, but I bet it's in there. They've wanted that data for years.
Perhaps, but I kind of doubt it. Blizzard is only one company, it has no interest in giving other companies access to their fans.
You may be right, but they are already distributing digitally. This allows them to do more cross-product pollinations with their fanbase. Also, they are no longer one company (http//www.activisionblizzard.com).
Sein Schatten
25-07-2008, 00:00
But both Starcraft II and Diablo III will be playable offline, which is why anti-piracy measures can make a difference in this case (where it doesn't in WoW/Bnet now).
Umm... I don't understand what that has to do with B-Net? I can only play online with a valid CD-Key. Why do you mention piracy as a B-Net feature? Makes no sense.
Blizzard is one of a few who don't use retarded, intrusive anti-piracy-measures. Their games sell because they are good and the name Blizzard is synonymous for quality. D3 will be no different in the case of quality and copy protection. I, for one, boycott any games with stupid "i overheat your cpu if you have d-tools installed" protections. :thumbup:
But both Starcraft II and Diablo III will be playable offline, which is why anti-piracy measures can make a difference in this case (where it doesn't in WoW/Bnet now).
For offline play Blizzard can't do anything more than they already do, since it's OFFLINE. Not to mention that has nothing to do with Battlenet.
Universal accounts don't preclude internet cafe use, you'd simply login to the Battle.net 2.0 client with your account and have access to all games you've purchased (that are also installed on the computer). The main difference might be that you will need to have purchased a key (digitally or otherwise) at some point in order for this to work. They could alter the client for internet cafe owners as well, which has been done before.
Which is exactly my point. When I go to the internet cafe and pay for the time, I expect to be able to use their CDkeys, not that I'll have to buy the game. What's the logic of that? It's quite possible that those that go to internet caffees either don't have a personal computer or a good enough connection if any to support online play. You expect them to buy a game they won't be able to play except when paying by the hour at an internet cafe? Are you mad?
Many features will be the same as the current Bnet, with minor extensions. An example of a difference here could be that when in-game, you could carry on texting with a friend who is in another server instance. Also, the texting session could be maintained separately from the game, so you could still text with someone who has left the game, but is not yet signed out of Battle.net.
Another server? You can't talk with people on other servers, if by server you mean realms as in Europe, Asia USeast or USwest. You can talk to people only on your realm, unless they changed that lately?
You CAN talk to somebody that isn't in the same game with you. It's called whisper.
The voice chat may end up being low quality, but I'd still bet money the feature will be present. It doesn't lag servers unless people use it, and even then it will probably be comparable to a 3rd party solution.
Exactly. It will either be so good it everybody will use it and lag the realms or it will be crappy and nobody will use it. So why have it in the first place when you can just use 3rd party programs that don't eat Blizzard band.
Umm... I don't understand what that has to do with B-Net? I can only play online with a valid CD-Key. Why do you mention piracy as a B-Net feature? Makes no sense.
So the main point I'm trying to convey is that I think the new Battle.net 2.0 is a different beast - it will partially run locally on your computer. You'll be logged into Battle.net 2.0 without being in a game (and not in a browser). Even offline, they could require that you sign in before playing Diablo III or Starcraft on a LAN. Steam has done this fairly successfully and I think Blizzard could be taking notes. It's been a pretty unobtrusive anti-piracy measure that you can also apply to offline games. It's not a perfect, but you can do a lot worse (as far as copy-protection goes).
For offline play Blizzard can't do anything more than they already do, since it's OFFLINE. Not to mention that has nothing to do with Battlenet.
Actually they can do more, they just haven't in the past. And yes, it has nothing to do with the current Battle.net. It would be a different, new (to Blizzard) approach, modeled after Steam's approach. I think it's one of the key differences between the old Battle.net and the new one. It's especially applicable with Starcraft II in a LAN enviroment.
When I go to the internet cafe and pay for the time, I expect to be able to use their CDkeys, not that I'll have to buy the game.
That's what I was referring to with altering the client for internet cafes, so you can still play with their keys without buying the game, like this:
https://cafe.steampowered.com/index.php?area=cafe/cafeHome.
It will either be so good it everybody will use it and lag the realms or it will be crappy and nobody will use it. So why have it in the first place when you can just use 3rd party programs that don't eat Blizzard band.
Well, I bet Blizzard thinks they can do a good job with this. And the biggest advantage over third party programs is that you sign up once and you're connected with text/voice across all Blizzard games, when you add a friend you add them across all communication channels. It's just easier for newcomers. Whether it's crappy quality, well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. =]
So the main point I'm trying to convey is that I think the new Battle.net 2.0 is a different beast - it will partially run locally on your computer. You'll be logged into Battle.net 2.0 without being in a game (and not in a browser). Even offline, they could require that you sign in before playing Diablo III or Starcraft on a LAN. Steam has done this fairly successfully and I think Blizzard could be taking notes. It's been a pretty unobtrusive anti-piracy measure that you can also apply to offline games. It's not a perfect, but you can do a lot worse (as far as copy-protection goes).
Steam is idiotic that it does this, but it's besides the point since it's already hacked. You can play games offline without a problem. No, it's not perfect, it's nowhere near perfect, the only people this stops are actually the legit players.
Actually they can do more, they just haven't in the past. And yes, it has nothing to do with the current Battle.net. It would be a different, new (to Blizzard) approach, modeled after Steam's approach. I think it's one of the key differences between the old Battle.net and the new one. It's especially applicable with Starcraft II in a LAN enviroment.
Considering Diablo is first and foremost a SINGLE PLAYER game what you are suggestion is absurd. Steam's way of doing things is not only bad, it's horribly bad. People that don't have a original CD-key can just download a hacked version of it and even play online if the servers aren't VAC secured. The only people this annoys are legit people that somehow don't have a connection at the time and no hacked version either.
Steam is a complete failure in this matter, your suggestion for Diablo, A SINGLE PLAYER GAME, to emulate this behaviour is mind mindnumbing.
That's what I was referring to with altering the client for internet cafes, so you can still play with their keys without buying the game, like this:
https://cafe.steampowered.com/index....=cafe/cafeHome.
Yes I know, but that works since the accounts never changes and since you said you want the accounts to be tied to a CDkey you are implying that people will have to buy a key to create their own accounts or they will have to use the same account as everyone else. Account sharing doesn't work in Diablo.
Well, I bet Blizzard thinks they can do a good job with this. And the biggest advantage over third party programs is that you sign up once and you're connected with text/voice across all Blizzard games, when you add a friend you add them across all communication channels. It's just easier for newcomers. Whether it's crappy quality, well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. =]
Well it's crappy quality in WoW, so we already saw. Stop trying to make them waste bandwidth, when that would be very precious. I'd rather have a lag free Bnet without voice chat than a lagged Bnet with voice chat.
Also note that for WoW you pay 15 bucks a month, so if they can't make it work for the constant money what makes you think they will for a game you stop paying once you bought it?
EDIT: It's also amusing to me that you think Blizzard can actually do a better job at the voice chat thing, than the programs specially designed for it. If by some miracle Blizzard's voice chat won't flop, it can only be as good as 3rd party programs, but will have the unfortunate side effect of flooding the realms with voice chat and lag everything.
I might be in the minority, but I think between $4.99-6.99 a month wouldn't be that unfair of a thing to charge for a Battle.net account that can be used with all Blizzard games.
Blizzard has said Diablo III would be free to play online, but have they specifically said that "Diablo III will be free to play online on Closed B.net"? I see a possibility of them charging a small fee for their new, secure closed B.net, while open B.Net remains free.
Any thoughts?
Diablo isn't a single player game "first and foremost". Its single player is much more of an afterthought than the multiplayer game. It's also clear they're focusing greatly on the multiplayer of D3.
And steam is an incredibly good service, and I wish that blizzard would emulate something similar for D3.
If you have a legit copy of a game and steam on your computer, you can play it even while offline, so I'm not sure why you're talking about steam punishing legit players...
I'd much rather have a service similar to steam or wow even, where I can jump onto a different computer, put in my account info, download the client and go from there, rather than have to dig up my cd's (which I may not have with me) find the correct CD key, and then install it on every different computer I might use.
Asking for a brief connection to the internet to play a game is pretty standard issue these days...
I think blizz would need to do more with bnet 2.0 than what the op outlined to impress me though.
I think it's possible kaeros, but you'll get blasted for implying that a monthly fee would be in any way beneficial.
Firstly, I should clarify something: these aren't suggestions. They're not features I necessarily even care about, or want. They're simply predictions.
Steam is idiotic that it does this, but it's besides the point since it's already hacked. You can play games offline without a problem. No, it's not perfect, it's nowhere near perfect, the only people this stops are actually the legit players.
I'm not a huge fan of Steam either, but it is arguably the most effective and least intrusive anti-piracy measure for offline games thus far. There are a lot of other good characteristics that Steam has as well. It has come a long way.
Well it's crappy quality in WoW, so we already saw. Stop trying to make them waste bandwidth, when that would be very precious. I'd rather have a lag free Bnet without voice chat than a lagged Bnet with voice chat.
So roughly 9 million people having the option to use voice chat in WoW right now - does it make their servers lag? I haven't actually tried it, so I don't know.
Also note that for WoW you pay 15 bucks a month, so if they can't make it work for the constant money what makes you think they will for a game you stop paying once you bought it?
Battle.net 2.0 is other future Blizzard games as well.
EDIT: It's also amusing to me that you think Blizzard can actually do a better job at the voice chat thing, than the programs specially designed for it.
I didn't say that. I said I bet they think they can do a good job. For them, it doesn't have to be better than Ventrilo, etc. Just good enough for newcomers. I won't use it. Again, I'm not recommending/endorsing it. Just speculating. =]
It will be interesting to see exactly why they are so excited about Battle.net 2.0. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I'm just looking at past successes, and I think we all recognize that Blizzard first and foremost wants to make the experience top notch. Hopefully they will avoid the pitfalls of many recent game releases (like nasty copy protection, etc).
Diablo isn't a single player game "first and foremost". Its single player is much more of an afterthought than the multiplayer game. It's also clear they're focusing greatly on the multiplayer of D3.
What?!?!? Hahahahahahahahahahahhaha, go reread what you wrote and think about it.
And steam is an incredibly good service, and I wish that blizzard would emulate something similar for D3.
Steam is good if you always have an internet connection on, otherwise it isn't.
If you have a legit copy of a game and steam on your computer, you can play it even while offline, so I'm not sure why you're talking about steam punishing legit players...
Actually when you try opening the game it tries to connect to steam and since you don't have an internet connection it can't connect to steam so it won't start the game. This stops on legit players since those that don't have legit copies of the game can just get hacked versions of Steam and bypass everything.
I'd much rather have a service similar to steam or wow even, where I can jump onto a different computer, put in my account info, download the client and go from there, rather than have to dig up my cd's (which I may not have with me) find the correct CD key, and then install it on every different computer I might use.
Well I wouldn't.
Asking for a brief connection to the internet to play a game is pretty standard issue these days...
Actually it isn't. Most games try to connect to the internet yes, but if they don't find a connection they don't just lockdown, you are able to play them.
I might be in the minority, but I think between $4.99-6.99 a month wouldn't be that unfair of a thing to charge for a Battle.net account that can be used with all Blizzard games.
Battlenet has, is and always will be free to play. If Blizzard tries to change it they will just look like another corporate money hungry company.
You might think it's fair, but I don't. Diablo, Starcraft, whatever aren't MMOs, they don't get the constant content update, they get new content once every 2-3 years. Why should I pay for it?
So roughly 9 million people having the option to use voice chat in WoW right now - does it make their servers lag? I haven't actually tried it, so I don't know.
Nobody uses it, it's crap. Everybody uses TS/Ventrilo/Skype.
Battle.net 2.0 is other future Blizzard games as well.
You seem to be under the impression that Bnet 2.0 is some magical land, it isn't. Bnet is only a means to an end, it doesn't matter how pretty it is or how many features that nobody every uses it has. Bnet should habe only one function ... be LAG FREE. Bnet is not the future, the games Blizzard makes are.
Sein Schatten
25-07-2008, 12:48
Diablo isn't a single player game "first and foremost".
Stopped reading there. I was in error to remove you from my ignore list in the first place. It is evident you are not here to have a intelligently, mature and constructive discussion. Back to /ignore.
Stopped reading there. I was in error to remove you from my ignore list in the first place. It is evident you are not here to have a intelligently, mature and constructive discussion. Back to /ignore.
There's an ignore function on this forum? Where can I find this gem?
Stopped reading there. I was in error to remove you from my ignore list in the first place. It is evident you are not here to have a intelligently, mature and constructive discussion. Back to /ignore.
So you're just going to close your eyes, cover your ears, and repeatedly yell "neh-neh, I can't hear you!" because your perspectives differ? Some mature and intelligent person you are. Going to put me on ignore, too, since even I challenge your beliefs?
I happen to agree with him. In principle D2 is single player, but in practice it is a resounding success as a multi player game. D3 will be no different, in fact D3 is apparently going to focus even more on multi player as Blizzard is realizing Diablo's strengths. Online and multi player gaming is increasing in popularity every year and shaping up to be the future in gaming. Single player games will always exist, but they'll become a greater niche or minority market. Think of D2 and D3 as unofficial MMOs.
Think of D2 and D3 as unofficial MMOs.
D2 is a MO (multiplayer online) game but not a MMO (massively multiplayer online) game. You can only play together with 8 people max in D2, not exactly what I would call massive... The only thing that is massively multiplayer in D2 are the chat channels but I wouldn't consider that part of the gameplay.
One minor thing I'm hoping they retain is universal accounts and friends lists between the different games.
I'll spend loads of time playing both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 online and I want to be able to use the same account(s) for both, with the same friends lists, as you can do right now with Diablo 2 and Starcraft.
Sein Schatten
25-07-2008, 14:39
There's an ignore function on this forum? Where can I find this gem?
User CP, scroll down to settings&options. :)
I agree D2 is primarily an SP game, with MP little more than an afterthought - something to be considered once all the classes are designed to function independently, just to make sure nothing's broken. D3 appears to be designed on the same principle; all classes are primarily dps classes (though that's not to say making support classes like d2c exploders by any means).
It seems the rarity of many items, such as the difficulty of completing a set via a normal play through, can give the illusion o/w, trading and MP are not the same thing, and honestly D2's difficulty is far better balanced around the assumption of playing alone with no more than moderate twinking.
The game is designed with party-play and cooperative in mind. Otherwise it wouldn't be near-impossible to play a sorceress untwinked through the game. Maybe that wasn't so when the game originally came out, but it's clear now that Blizzard has realized where Diablo's strong points are and has gradually adjusted the game. Thus I expect D3 to be much more multiplayer-oriented.
The game is designed with party-play and cooperative in mind. Otherwise it wouldn't be near-impossible to play a sorceress untwinked through the game. Maybe that wasn't so when the game originally came out, but it's clear now that Blizzard has realized where Diablo's strong points are and has gradually adjusted the game. Thus I expect D3 to be much more multiplayer-oriented.
It's not impossible for the sorc to run the game solo, it's just hard and that's the point I think. The designers already said all classes will be dps classes and that they are making D3 so that you can play it solo. That's pretty much all there is to it.
imjustsomeguy
25-07-2008, 16:52
D3 is not going to be primarily a single player game and isn't being designed as one. Why do you think there were '4' classes being shown playing together in the demo gameplay video? And of course this doesn't mean that you can't play the game solo.
D3 is not going to be primarily a single player game and isn't being designed as one. Why do you think there were '4' classes being shown playing together in the demo gameplay video?
There aren't 4 classes shown playing together, only 2 classes are shown playing together, it's 4 characters that are playing together, 2 male and 2 female. Yeah you're right if the game was meant to be played solo they would have shown us that Barbarian for example fighting by himself in some dungeon or the witch doctor alone in some forest ... oh wait!
Are some of you guys getting at that D3 is not going to focus on co-operative game? Blizzard clearly stated that they are focusing on making it more enjoyable/rewarding playing with other persons. Or did I misinterpret what you are getting at?
Are some of you guys getting at that D3 is not going to focus on co-operative game? Blizzard clearly stated that they are focusing on making it more enjoyable/rewarding playing with other persons. Or did I misinterpret what you are getting at?
Some people made the absurd statement that Diablo2 was not actually a single player game and that the single player mode of it was an "afterthought". :whistling:
Yes Blizzard did say they want more coop game but not in the sense you are taking it. You're taking like it's some sort of mini WoW and they already dismissed that. The game is made to be able to get through the entire game in single player. There is no boss/whatever in the game where a party will be required, just like there isn't one in Diablo 2.
An example of the type of coop they are talking about are those new health globes, ranged chars would have a bit of a problem to get them, while the barb which is close to the action can get them right away. Remember those globes heal the entire party. Another type of coop is the new loot system, there won't be any loot stealing now and trade within the party will be encouraged. If you're a sorc(example!) drops some good axe she might want to trade with for something that dropped to the barb.
Holy jumping to conclusion band wagon. Where did I say it was a mini WoW or even gave a hint it is? Cool down before posting.
You are really stretching it. "they are talking about those new health globes". Where did you get your insight in the thought of the developers?
I can give you another example where you jumped to conclusion. In your first post you said in-voice chat would lagg servers. Now how do you know the voice-chat servers wouldn't be on entirely different servers?
If you want to hear my opinion, ask for it. I'll gladly give it.
addendum: I do not think that single player was an afterhought. I believe they develop the games for both singeplayer and multiplayer. I do however think they condone multiplayer/co-op, and try to add elements to make it more rewarding. Hence, I believe D3 is going to be mainly played in multiplayer, especially in the year of 2010 when a lot of people have broadband connections.
You are really stretching it. "they are talking about those new health globes". Where did you get your insight in the thought of the developers?
Because that's what Beshiok said...
I can give you another example where you jumped to conclusion. In your first post you said in-voice chat would lagg servers. Now how do you know the voice-chat servers wouldn't be on entirely different servers?
Since it would be much easier for it to be on the same server. You don't connect to Bnet and something else, you only connect to Bnet. For what you are suggestion the voice servers would have to be on a completely other IP than the bnet servers I really doubt it would happen.
Holy jumping to conclusion band wagon. Where did I say it was a mini WoW or even gave a hint it is? Cool down before posting.
I used you out a habbit, I meant the people that are screaming multiplayer.
addendum: I do not think that single player was an afterhought. I believe they develop the games for both singeplayer and multiplayer. I do however think they condone multiplayer/co-op, and try to add elements to make it more rewarding. Hence, I believe D3 is going to be mainly played in multiplayer, especially in the year of 2010 when a lot of people have broadband connections.
As an RPG, action RPG, but RPG nonetheless the action is you're a hero that has to save the world. That only happens in single player, that's why there aren't any boss/areas where only parties can survive. The same thing can't be said about WoW or any other MMO.
Gigashadow
25-07-2008, 17:21
DII was geared for MP, there is no way debating that, just look at the drop rates - they are ridiculous for SP, but good for trade.
DIII will be geared for MP, but they may tweak SP to make it easier for solo players.
But what does this have to do with bnet?
I don't expect a lot of changes, just nicer interface, better latency management, division of game types such as fastest, etc...
It's easy to solo as a sorc, untwinked or o/w, and has actually got easier. Before synergies the first few (anywhere up to 30, if you were going orb) levels could be really slow progress.
Please don't confuse trading with other players and multiplayer. D2 is better balanced around the assumption of weaker items anyway. You certainly don't need to complete IK or tal before you stand a chance against Baal.
All D2 classes were clearly designed to be self-sufficient and with such a weak trading and pvp system, and almost an entire act that's easily bypassable in MP (aka act 3), if anything is an 'afterthought' in D2, it's multiplayer. The content and mechanics relevant to both SP and MP are where Blizz concentrated the vast majority of their resources.
In D3 I expect more dev focus on improving MP relevent functionality... but I'm absolutely confident they won't be sacrificing SP in any way to do so.
Gigashadow
25-07-2008, 17:46
I never found SP easy. It becomes totally undoable in the middle of Nightmare. It just takes ages to kill everything, especially take a bone necro. Not "hard", just takes ages. Hell gets even more ridiculous. You never get good items, and enemies all have immunities. In COOP, you can make a game with a sorc and a zealer and basically kill everything because the compliment each other. In SP, all you get is a henchman who's... well, his damage is a joke.
I don't know what the heck do you have to complete but I have to use an ACT I axe all through ACT IV because NOTHING_EVER_DROPS. The drop rates are just sick for SP. Try to complete a set in SP. It's not going to happen. Try to find good runes in SP. Not going to happen. Why? Low MP-geared drop rates.
SP isn't hard at all, once you have some experience with it. Every class can be Guardianed playing untwinked and solo with some patience (monsters have a lot of life in late Hell, but you can get reasonable damage by then) and skill, but it does take a very well planned out build, and in HC sometimes a bit of luck. Knowing the useful low level runewords, cube recipes, when and where to use gems, and the best items to gamble for make a big difference too.
imjustsomeguy
25-07-2008, 19:06
There aren't 4 classes shown playing together, only 2 classes are shown playing together, it's 4 characters that are playing together, 2 male and 2 female. Yeah you're right if the game was meant to be played solo they would have shown us that Barbarian for example fighting by himself in some dungeon or the witch doctor alone in some forest ... oh wait!
A minor error that has no effect on the point I was making. Yes the Barb and WD were shown individualy to show off the classes and their skills. After we were introduced to them we see the showcased boss fight with 4 players together.
Diablo is first and foremost a co-op game. Watch the gameplay video again. At 11:12 the narrator says, "Diablo is first and foremost a co-op game. There's nothing better than bashing monsters with your friends."
edit- I didn't say anything about the "game not meant to be played solo." If Blizzard didn't want the game to be played solo then it would be bnet only which isn't the case. It's going to be both single and MP but it's being designed around co-op play.
DII was geared for MP, there is no way debating that, just look at the drop rates - they are ridiculous for SP, but good for trade.
DIII will be geared for MP, but they may tweak SP to make it easier for solo players.
But what does this have to do with bnet?
It was used as an argument to oppose certain proposed b.net features and things like integrated copyright protection ala Steam.
Folks, how many times does we have to warn you about flaming and or flamebaiting before we hand out temp bans?
No, I don't see that 5zigen.
Gigashadow is in error by saying DII was made for MP. SP is perfectly playable, solo, untwinked and HC. You need skill and tactics and a knowledge of the game a lot more than slap on an EBotD, Fort on the merc and Enigma on you, but it's perfectly possible. Please feel free to stop by the SPF Tourney listings and the Mat/Pat/Guardian threads. You can grail easily in SP (get one of every set/unique) arguably easier than Bnet because of our ability to mule more easily.
That doesn't mean no copy protection. D2 has copy protection, so does pretty much every game I play. You can't use offline play as an excuse not to have copy protection. That's absurd.
HG:L did MP over servers and it's a total disaster. I don't want to play with random nubs, I want to play with my friends, privately. That means SP or TCP/IP - where we host on each others computers. Open Bnet is full of cheats that legitimate players don't want to touch. To give that as the only SP/MP option would be a gigantic mistake.
If I want to play an online MMO (I do at the moment NOT WoWcrack) then I will. But that isn't the Diablo franchise.
So, please. SP is NOT an accuse for no copy protection. You do it differently. And for the record, we connect to Bnet - when we choose - to get updates. Only then. The rest of the time we enjoy our muling with ease, we enjoy playing without lag and frankly we enjoy not having to deal with some of the muppets out there. No offence meant to Bnet players - idiots are everwhere not just on Bnet. :)
EDIT:
Yeah that's why I came to this thread, Gorny but I got distracted replying.
@All - what Gorny said. :D
No, I don't see that 5zigen.
Gigashadow is in error by saying DII was made for MP. SP is perfectly playable, solo, untwinked and HC. You need skill and tactics and a knowledge of the game a lot more than slap on an EBotD, Fort on the merc and Enigma on you, but it's perfectly possible. Please feel free to stop by the SPF Tourney listings and the Mat/Pat/Guardian threads. You can grail easily in SP (get one of every set/unique) arguably easier than Bnet because of our ability to mule more easily.
Yes you can do everything more easily in SP. With commands to emulate Bnet (players 8) and the mule application it was a lot easier to grail / mule and additionally to level and beat the game.
It's not really true to characterize the MP experience by people slapping on a BoTD as that is only viable from the rampant duping, not exactly an intended feature of B.net.
But the argument came up when it was claimed (i think by CBR) that Diablo is "First and Foremost a single player game" and it's even been demonstrated in the play demo that it's "first and foremost a cooperative game".
That doesn't mean no copy protection. D2 has copy protection, so does pretty much every game I play. You can't use offline play as an excuse not to have copy protection. That's absurd.
HG:L did MP over servers and it's a total disaster. I don't want to play with random nubs, I want to play with my friends, privately. That means SP or TCP/IP - where we host on each others computers. Open Bnet is full of cheats that legitimate players don't want to touch. To give that as the only SP/MP option would be a gigantic mistake.
If I want to play an online MMO (I do at the moment NOT WoWcrack) then I will. But that isn't the Diablo franchise.
So, please. SP is NOT an accuse for no copy protection. You do it differently. And for the record, we connect to Bnet - when we choose - to get updates. Only then. The rest of the time we enjoy our muling with ease, we enjoy playing without lag and frankly we enjoy not having to deal with some of the muppets out there. No offence meant to Bnet players - idiots are everwhere not just on Bnet. :)
I mean, you even refute the argument that D2 is a single player game first and foremost when you say you want to play it with your friends over tcp/ip. Though I should have said it was an argument against digital distribution and copy protection ala Valves Steam.
I'm not saying that diablo is only intended for multi player, but to imply that multi player is an afterthought, or not a primary intention of diablo is silly, as it's multiplayer function has been a core aspect since the first game, and it revolutionized the online ARPG.
cbr, he mentioned the health globe thing, yes, but you are still making far too vide assumptions. He mentioned only that, but what do you really know about the rest? There can be tons of other things they implement to focus on co-op. Provide me with some solid evidence that that is not the case, and you might have a point.
I am sorry, but I feel you are just too rapid on the post button. I find lack of thought in some of your posts. Not trying to convey that in a rude way, but try to reflect upon that. You don't know a lot of things you are talking about yet you try to state what you say as facts. It's not a good habit.
A single person can take any character untwinked through the game. Please go and look at the Tourney threads and Mat/Pat/Guardian threads I suggested. I'm not saying D2 is primarily SP or Bnet, I'm saying both are equally valid and have very different playstyles.
You have people in those threads playing totally solo, untwinked and beating Hell Baal.
I enjoy MP over LAN doesn't mean I don't play solo. I'm a fair way through my grail. I didn't get it via MP.
I don't really see why people think Diablo 3 should be online only or SP only. There is no reason not to have both as D2 does. Copy protection arguements aren't relevent to that in any way shape or form.
Sein Schatten
26-07-2008, 00:34
You can grail easily in SP (get one of every set/unique) arguably easier than Bnet because of our ability to mule more easily.
Care to explain? SP means no trading. How can you achieve this without trading? Just looking at the dropchance of some of the highest runes means, basically, impossibility to get it. :scratchchin:
Care to explain? SP means no trading. How can you achieve this without trading? Just looking at the dropchance of some of the highest runes means, basically, impossibility to get it. :scratchchin:
Atma .
Sein Schatten
26-07-2008, 00:57
Atma .
Mixed bag SP&MP.
edit: I wouldn't call trading with others SP, sorry.
And I wouldn't call playing solo using items you've got from trading with other players multiplayer, either. Everything except rarity is clearly focused on the lone player, and to change rarity to make the untwinked single pass player able to complete sets like IK would pretty much destroy D2.
HGL on the other hand, that really did have an item system that showed contempt for SP. No TCP/IP type support for SPers running multiple copies, combined with most items you find being unequippable class specifics. Even there however the enemies, skills items etc were balanced for solo play.
Sein Schatten
26-07-2008, 01:09
And I wouldn't call playing solo using items you've got from trading with other players multiplayer, either.
You talking to me? If so, please quote me where I said that. :)
edit:
I was talking to Thyiad. Read my post, understand my post and what Thyiad said.
edit2:
If he thinks trading with others is SP, okay. Then it is possible to achieve what he said. IMO, it is not pure SP. :scratchchin:
edit3:
In the end you can play in protected games alone online and I would call it SP. SP means, for me, no interference from others.
Considering Diablo is first and foremost a SINGLE PLAYER game what you are suggestion is absurd. Steam's way of doing things is not only bad, it's horribly bad. People that don't have a original CD-key can just download a hacked version of it and even play online if the servers aren't VAC secured. The only people this annoys are legit people that somehow don't have a connection at the time and no hacked version either.
This is where CBR said Diablo is "first an foremost a single player game".
cbr, he mentioned the health globe thing, yes, but you are still making far too vide assumptions. He mentioned only that, but what do you really know about the rest? .... habit.
I have no idea what any of that post meant, it seemed completely incoherent to me so if it was directed at me let me know (considering it was immediately following my post.
I enjoy MP over LAN doesn't mean I don't play solo. I'm a fair way through my grail. I didn't get it via MP.
I don't really see why people think Diablo 3 should be online only or SP only. There is no reason not to have both as D2 does. Copy protection arguements aren't relevent to that in any way shape or form.
I'm not talking about the gameplay, I'm talking about the networking functionality. To suggest that Diablo is "First and foremost a single player game" is incredibly short sighted. Diablo has ALWAYS been about playing online, at least partially, and in the video they've even stated "Diablo is first and foremost a cooperative game"
Where this whole argument stemmed from, (this is a speculation thread regarding Bnet 2.0, mind you) is because the OP Foresaw that Bnet 2.0 would be more like Valve's steam to some degree, to implement copy protection for the game and incorporate some sort of digital distribution system.
At which point Sein and cbr started railing on how idiotic it would be to implement such a system because the steam system allegedly "punishes legit gamers" when it doesn't in any way shape or form. This is where the argument stemmed from, and I found it aggravating that people were making both false statements about steam (That it punishes people who dont use hacked copies of a game) and making what I consider absurd statements about diablo (saying it's first and foremost a single player game). That's my beef with the thread.
It may be only my opinion, but diablo has always been about online interaction in some way or another, as it's debut marked the conception of b.net. And while it's perfectly normal to play solo online, or single player, or tcpip, the online and multiplayer functionality of the diablo franchise has and should always be considered a core part of the franchise, far from an "afterthought".
It was directed at cbr.
Thyiad I don't think I or anyone said that it was solely multiplayer. I reacted to what 5zigen quoted (just above this post; the part cbr said about that Diablo is first and foremost singleplayer). I don't agree with that, but if it was the case, who says D3 has to be first and foremost single player. It's natural to evolve to first and foremost multiplayer, but still including singleplayer obviously.
edit: 5zigen pretty much said what I think.
rolandk10
13-08-2008, 10:04
As far as voice chat goes, they could implement it like skype or ventrillo but have it pull data from your game so it would automatically drop you into a session with the people who are there but let a client side programs connect to eachother outside the game server. Would only lag then based on your own bandwidth.
PlasmaTorture
13-08-2008, 10:44
Here's something that's going to warp your mind.
Are you ready for this?
Okay.
Here we go:
Neither Multiplayer nor Singeplayer are afterthoughts in the Diablo series.
Starving_Poet
13-08-2008, 18:52
Mmmm
Battle.net 2.0 voice chat:
*turns on voice chat*
"WUG WUG WUG"
"FREE MONIES FOR NOOB?!"
*unistals voice chat*
CaptainDingo
13-08-2008, 20:24
Battle.net 2.0 would have to seriously impress me to make me want to play with strangers. I mean, it'd have to impress the HELL out of me. In order for me to say "Oh yeah, time to play on Battle.net, whee!" they'd have to convince me that playing with other people can be fun and not annoying.
In fact, it'd have so much impressing to do, I don't even have a single idea as to what it could do to accomplish that.
CaptainDingo
13-08-2008, 20:27
And for the record...
Piracy is a non-issue for online games. ;)
Voicechat? Doubt it. WoW ingame voice chat is BAD. REAL BAD. Nobody uses it. ;)
I did use it all the time, I don't see what was so wrong with it. You press a button, you talk. It's not like it was complicated, as opposed to running a program in the background to accomplish the exact same thing, which is made 100% unnecessary when voice chat is finally handled in-game.
The only reason I could fathom someone would still want to run Ventrilo or TeamSpeak in the background when they no longer have to is they're stubbornly hanging onto them like an old habit. :P Unless there's something amazing about these programs I was unaware of, aside from the fact that all they do is let you speak to people.
Starving_Poet
13-08-2008, 21:52
The only reason I could fathom someone would still want to run Ventrilo or TeamSpeak in the background when they no longer have to is they're stubbornly hanging onto them like an old habit. :P Unless there's something amazing about these programs I was unaware of, aside from the fact that all they do is let you speak to people.
Oh, maybe the fact that they are still there if the game crashes... or if you want to play something else with your friends... or you just want to chat with your buddies and not play any games. I pay for my own 50 man vent server, and I can assure you, it's not because I'm hanging onto the past. :yes:
The reason battle.net is great is because if you want to play, there are always people around, all the time. Even the idiots serve a purpose, they were meant to be PKed and put in their place. All things have their purpose in the wonderful world of battle.net.
Sein Schatten
13-08-2008, 23:00
Oh, maybe the fact that they are still there if the game crashes... or if you want to play something else with your friends... or you just want to chat with your buddies and not play any games. I pay for my own 50 man vent server, and I can assure you, it's not because I'm hanging onto the past. :yes:
Not to mention the better quality and the extra features the software has.
CaptainDingo
13-08-2008, 23:05
DON'T HIT ME!
I noticed no issue with the quality, personally. I can somewhat/kinda/sorta/a little bit see the point of being able to talk with them when you don't have the game opened, but apparently I'm not enough of a social butterfly to see why you'd want to talk to like 50 people when you aren't even playing.
I was never big on organized guilds or anything like that. Every guild I was a part of was lazy, accomplished nothing, and never helped each other out. I'm fairly sure we barely even talked, not even via typing.
The only features I look for in voice communication is that I talk to people and they talk back, so that may be why I'm easy to please. Dingo push button, Dingo send talking, Dingo hear talking back in headphones.
*Clap, squeal*
Sein Schatten
13-08-2008, 23:07
Well, for 5men (why do people call it 5mans?) you don't need VC. But for raids and organized PvP you need it. And people have different needs. Like one channel for healers, one for all, one for DPS yadda yadda. PLus you might want to mute someone or all. Whatever. All that is just better and easier to do with the professional tools. ;)
To those that say that Diablo is primarily a single player game. This snippet is taken from an interview with Jay Wilson
Unlike Diablo II, where the default mode was single player offline, Diablo III will default to online multiplayer mode, just to encourage people to login to the battle.net servers and ensure that their characters’ progression and loot are kept safe.
Link is here: http://vault.ign.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=35
They also stated that single player will still be entirely viable in this snippet:
As Jay puts it, “When you’re playing the game by yourself, we consider it a cooperative game with one person in it.”
They don’t want to create a scenario where the player would have to go and find friends in order to get through the content.
From the same article.
So the only people that are wrong are the ones saying Multiplayer is an afterthought and single player is impossible or an afterthought as well. I see people arguing back and forth about one or two extreme posts when I think 99% of us agree that Diablo 3 will likely remain the same in that Multiplayer will be played by the majority but SP will still be 100% viable and equally well thought out as the MP.
The move to defaulting to Bnet when you first choose to start a game is an interesting thing though.
CaptainDingo
14-08-2008, 00:09
I was already going to say, no matter which side of that argument you're on, you'd be wrong. Diablo 3 is going to be a single player game AND a co-op game. Which it is "primarily" makes little or no difference. They're just saying the game is more fun if you play it cooperatively with friends, but most things tend to be so it's not like it's a huge revelation.
Only place where I disagree is where you say multiplayer is the majority, but it's not really something I'd want to argue all over again. :P
rolandk10
14-08-2008, 01:36
I never played WoW but I wouldn't want a 'push to talk' voice chat system. If they do it, I'd rather it be PS3 style where you could just pair a bluetooth headset and the chat is always on like a conferance call. There are only eight people in the game (assumption) and half of them in PS3 games don't have them anyways so it's not that bad. It's like sitting in a room at a LAN party and just talking/coordinating/plotting with others around the table. Of course there would need to be a squelch button for the annoying ones.
thecowking
14-08-2008, 03:56
D2 is a MO (multiplayer online) game but not a MMO (massively multiplayer online) game. You can only play together with 8 people max in D2, not exactly what I would call massive... The only thing that is massively multiplayer in D2 are the chat channels but I wouldn't consider that part of the gameplay.
/agree
8 people isn't very massive. I am glad they aren't making the online portion of D3 like an MMO. It was good how it was and they should keep it that way.
Although I think in D3 they are making party sizes around 5.
(This is my first post by the way) :)
CaptainDingo
14-08-2008, 03:58
I never played WoW but I wouldn't want a 'push to talk' voice chat system. If they do it, I'd rather it be PS3 style where you could just pair a bluetooth headset and the chat is always on like a conferance call. There are only eight people in the game (assumption) and half of them in PS3 games don't have them anyways so it's not that bad. It's like sitting in a room at a LAN party and just talking/coordinating/plotting with others around the table. Of course there would need to be a squelch button for the annoying ones.
Careful what you wish for, you'll have to put up with occasionally hearing "Billy, dinner time!" "Aw come on mom, I'm playing Diablo!" "Right now young man!" if you eliminate push to talk...
rolandk10
14-08-2008, 08:02
Careful what you wish for, you'll have to put up with occasionally hearing "Billy, dinner time!" "Aw come on mom, I'm playing Diablo!" "Right now young man!" if you eliminate push to talk...
I must admit I get uncomfortable when I'm playing a game and there are what sounds to be 12 year olds in there swearing and talking about things they would never say in front of their parents. I'm 35 so I feel like a chaparone when this happens but at the same time, we are both playing the same 'game'. When voice chat is used, It'd be nice to have a required age limit so at least a kid might keep quiet if he comes in.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.