Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard's World of Warcraft Beta Goes Live

craenor writes "Perhaps the most anticipated entry into the increasingly crowded PC MMORPG market, Blizzard's World of Warcraft, has just reached the live Beta stage, for those select players lucky enough to be picked. In a distinct change from the existing trend in Beta tests, they are not going to require NDAs for participating players, and everyone will have read access to the official Beta forums while testing takes place." The WoW site includes a basic game FAQ for beginners, and BitTorrent is now live as Blizzard's Beta distribution method of choice, as the mentioned earlier on Slashdot Games.

264 comments

  1. Oh No ! by rkoot · · Score: 4, Funny

    My favorite Vaporware vanished in thin air !!
    r.

    1. Re:Oh No ! by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry... there's always Duke Nukem Forever.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Oh No ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be Duke Nukem Forever is Forever?

  2. hopefully they will open beta by cyrax777 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Later on to test how it will perform under real world use. A closed beta really inst news worthy if you ask me.

    1. Re:hopefully they will open beta by Cyber+Dugie · · Score: 0

      I don't think they gonna open beta real soon.... just to enter the closed beta is so hard :( but they should go for open beta real soon.

    2. Re:hopefully they will open beta by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Of course they will - but they will call it a "release" and you'll have to pay to test :)

    3. Re:hopefully they will open beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then it wouldnt be test u stupif fucker

    4. Re:hopefully they will open beta by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1


      I see your "stupif fuckker" and raise you a "sardonic remark"

  3. Blizzard sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So now Blizzard likes open source software, since it's going to save them some costs. I say they can go fuck themselves. I'll think I'll pirate their software over BitTorrent just to balance out the cosmos.

    They are the ones who shut down FreeCraft and Bnetd, two software projects I was using regularly! Up until that point I had purchased WarCraft II, the WCII expansion, StarCraft and it's expansion and Diablo II. I think they should pay for their own hosting costs to hock their games. Sure, cease & desist whatever you don't like and embrace what will further your profits.

  4. Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hooray! Another reason for me to camp in the basement of my parents house!

    1. Re:Rejoice! by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hooray! Another reason for me to camp in the basement of my parents house!

      ...only when you run down there, you find a big group of players that have been camping there for two days for a special mob to spawn. Get in line.


      God, I am so glad I beat my Everquest addiction.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    2. Re:Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think the "Progress Quest" parody of everquest is the best cure for game addiction I've seen.

      Now I'm addicted to Progress Quest. and play it often - but the neat part is that it takes all the time-consuming grunt-work out of EverQuest while keeping the fun.

    3. Re:Rejoice! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      WOW has mechanisms to avoid this most annoying habit of lame-ass RPGers. They have instance areas where only you and your group will be present so there is no spawn camping outside your own group members.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the price is right (free download available, but not open source) too.

    5. Re:Rejoice! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      AO has the same types of dungeons so it's nothing new.

    6. Re:Rejoice! by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      So I guess "the most annoying habit of lame-ass RPGers" would be "interacting with other people".

    7. Re:Rejoice! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I beat my Everquest addiction.

      Me too!
      <twitch>

    8. Re:Rejoice! by prator · · Score: 1

      Ironically, yes. The most aggravating part of every MMO I've played is always other people.

      -prator

  5. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I guess thats the reason Starcraft failed to be a success as a multiplayer game.

  6. Maybe... by dupper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...among geeks, is WoW the most anticipated MMORPG, but the most anticipated MMO among the general populace was Star Wars: Galaxies, and we all know how that turned out. But, then again, Lucasarts and Sony are pretty hit-or-miss, but Blizzard has a flawless record. Still, beware the overhyped crap.

    1. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can tell you Star Wars galaxies is a lot better these days (vehicles, ridable mounts, player cities, a lot more content). Their start just wasn't perfect, but neither was any other MMORPG start. Let's hope Blizzard can get it right!

    2. Re:Maybe... by will_die · · Score: 1

      The most anticipated MMO amoung the general population was The Sims Online.
      SWG was up there but was still primarily a "geek" population.

      But my main reason of posting was to rant yet again against a terrible game by Blizzard Warcraft III. Here you have a game that game nothing new to the RTS domain and even worse did a very poor job of implementing all the previous ideas.

    3. Re:Maybe... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no excuse for star wars galaxy.
      They way they did it sucked, At it showed absolutly NO knowledge of what people want to do in the star wars universe.
      The Jedi was a complete screw up.

      Even though I know Luke talks about 'womp rats', people do not want to go out and kill rats in the star wars universe, they pretty much want 1 of four things:
      1) Get Rebel Scum
      2) Get Emperial Scum
      3) Be a smuggler Scum
      4) Merchant.(really no my thing, but hey its popular)

      Now, the Jedi should have been a class you can start with. Base you power on deeds, and have a Good/Dark meter. when you get REALLY good, or Evil, you start to get the bizarro powers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Maybe... by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, the Jedi should have been a class you can start with. Base you power on deeds, and have a Good/Dark meter. when you get REALLY good, or Evil, you start to get the bizarro powers.

      Well, you sum up one of the problems with MMORPGs - when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.

      Also, if a newbie gets the most powerful class/weapon in the fictional universe first thing, what can they strive for later? I mean, if every newbie gets a lightblade and runs around whacking things with it, what differs that from giving a newbie a rusty knife and letting them run around whacking things with it?

      You are also indicative of another problem that haunts developers, everyone wants the game to be tailored for their specific playing style, and seem to be unable to grasp that the developers have to take into consideration all the different playing styles. Power gamers, plot/character RPGers, PKers, casual gamers...

      I'm not saying how they handled Jedi in the game was perfect, but I think it was right of them to make it something special and something to strive for.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    5. Re:Maybe... by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Blizzard ussually always get the game right! The only problem they have is that they tend to have problems balancing the games... Look at Warcraft III and Diablo II, still not close to being balanced even after 10+ updates!

    6. Re:Maybe... by Diego_27182818 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I can tell you Star Wars galaxies is a lot better these days (vehicles, ridable mounts, player cities, a lot more content).

      Can I get in a ship and fly to a differant planet? Can I get in my X-Wing and blow up TIES? Can I flee in terror from the horror that is an Imperial Class Star Destroyer? Until both space combat and space travel is there it's not Star Wars.
      --
      Warning, cape does not enable user to fly
    7. Re:Maybe... by NoseSocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A hero? A hero would indicate that an individual player means something. Most of the MMORPG'S ( I dare say all) does nothing to make you feel like a hero. You just kill things that will eventually come back. The only reward is an item to help you kill something bigger. Any resemblence to a plot in these games is truly laughable, and half the time it contradicts another plot in the game (while the other half makes no sense it all).

      But the problem at large is not usually the game designers alone: it's the players too. If everyone only cares about getting the bigger hammer to bonk the bigger mole, then to keep subscriptions and sales up, the designers will cater to the masses. If you do not cater to the masses, you do not earn as much of a profit as the other companies that do, and then your management says "You're not meeting our expectations". It's an ugly cycle. Similar to how much of america watches reality tv, despite the fact that most of it is garbage. Would you put on a quality show that could only produce a fraction of the ratings of Survivor?

    8. Re:Maybe... by keyne9 · · Score: 1

      FFXI:O had a pretty flawless start, in my opinion. Very little, if any, broken content. Good balance, good variety of things to do, sprawling world. You know, the good stuff.

    9. Re:Maybe... by haystor · · Score: 1

      That isn't even remotely what people really want out of a Star Wars game. Top three:

      3. A real thermal detonator.
      2. Being able to carbonite freeze the people you gank in PvP.
      1. A sofa suitable for tying up your dancing slaves.

      SWG was a good game for about 2 months. A person could get to PvP level in just a couple days and actually participate. There were no major penalties for death in PvP so an assault on a city would band everone together and eventually they would repel it.

      Since then they've changed everything they could to stop people from participating in PvP. They implemented special drops and high level gear. Now you have to grind for days to get PvP level stuff. They implemented decay so that your high level stuff wears out at least 1% every time you hit the clone center. Jedi is a senseless grind and removes tons of people who now actively avoid PvP so they can grind. Then net result is that nobody does PvP unless they are the highest level in the best gear.

      --
      t
    10. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm not a diablo player, but warcraft has always been balanced unless you happen to be in the top 100 players or so. and even then it depends on where you live. for instance I seem to recall some tournament in europe where nearly all the winners played humans, while in the US everyone was complaining about how overpowered night elf was!

    11. Re:Maybe... by Sheepdot · · Score: 1, Troll

      but Blizzard has a flawless record.

      I'm sorry, but those of us that liked Warcraft II, Diablo I, and Starcraft tend to hate Warcraft III. Diablo II was absolutely nothing new and was so damn buggy it was pathetic.

      Replay value on their single player games are horrible too. No PvP. The game is going to be a single player game with chat.

    12. Re:Maybe... by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends, do you count the original Japanese release, or the non-Japanese release which took part long afterwards... The original release was from all accounts I've heard of, typical for a MMORPG, or in other words bug ridden. Only reason it seemed smooth in the US(and other locales), was that they joined quite awhile after the actual launch, in fact the first expansion was already released and patched up before the worldwide release...

    13. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Diablo II was absolutely nothing new and was so damn buggy it was pathetic.

      Diablo II rocks, and continues to rock.

      Nothing new? More quests, characters, abilities, character variation, items, everything. Did you even play DII?

    14. Re:Maybe... by prator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I definitely didn't enjoy Warcraft 3 as much as I wanted to, but I think that is only because of how good a game Starcraft was.

      -prator

    15. Re:Maybe... by bugbread · · Score: 1

      I'm going to guess that you're talking about the American launch. The Japanese launch was bad. Bad bad. Not Anarchy Online bad, of course, but definitely not good. According to a coworker, just getting logged on and staying logged on was a challenge.

    16. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you sum up one of the problems with MMORPGs - when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.

      Yeah, but this is a particular problem with the Star Wars universe -- which is constructed around elites (Jedi), a few spaceship pilots, and everyone else (boring no-name shmoes).

      Since you can't fly spaceships, and you can't make everyone a Jedi, that adds up to a pretty boring game world (as described by the movies). A fantasy universe like Lord of The Rings has much more room for small-time heros.

    17. Re:Maybe... by bonch · · Score: 1

      but Blizzard has a flawless record.

      I guess you missed Diablo 2 and WarCraft 3. More people play Starcraft on Battle.net than WarCraft 3. I could list paragraphs of the reasons why WC3 sucked (don't get me started on the awful story and voice acting), but the biggest one is that they box you into playing a certain way. Then they limit the # of units in an attempt to "prevent rushing," but the gameplay requires that you rush and nothing else. Get heroes, run out and level them up, than rush enemy. Rinse and repeat for 30min cycles. Gee, fun.

      I was a HUGE fan of WarCraft and was blown away when WarCraft 2 came out. WarCraft 3 feels like it was made by a totally different company.

    18. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant nothing innovative was in Diablo II. All the newities you mentioned are simply expansions onto the basis that Diablo created. Diablo II even felt like a simple expansion to Diablo when I played it. Definitely a waste of my money.

    19. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually like Warcraft 3 more than Starcraft, and yes I did like Starcraft (although not as much as I liked Warcraft 2, which is probably still my favorite Blizzard game). I quit playing SC because I'm never willing to get the skills necessary to play on Battle.net, so when I exhausted the game playing with my friends (or alone, although every Blizzard RTS has absolutely blown in single player non-campaign play because of their cheap AI) I put it away for good. A very good friend played the heck out of both SC and Diablo 2 (his Diablo 2 addiction actually had me worried about his health for a while), but when WC3 came out, I could wipe the floor with him. He was so used to Starcraft's style of play that he absolutely could not micromanage his units at all. He could build a big force faster than me, but I still was able to destroy him over and over again. Even though I had fun at first, though, he got so agitated about it that I stopped enjoying myself and refused to play it with him anymore. Now it sits on the shelf, unplayed for the same reason as Starcraft.

      What's my point? Warcraft 3 is a good game. Starcraft is a good game. Warcraft 3 is not Starcraft. It plays differently, but that doesn't make it better or worse. Just like how Riggs wasn't a better friend than Froggy, just different. And now that I've referenced Lethal Weapon 4, I need to go take a shower. Excuse me.

    20. Re:Maybe... by damiam · · Score: 1

      If Starcraft hadn't been made, WCIII would have been considered an awesome game. The only reason it gets so much flak is because it's not as good as Starcraft. In its own right, it's still better than 95% of the other games out there.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:Maybe... by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      Well, you sum up one of the problems with MMORPGs - when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.

      This is absolutely not true. There is no logical reason, besides laziness, for why MMORPG characters take thousands of hours and dozens of levels to be anything like what Cloud or Squall are in the first few minutes of a console RPG. Console RPGs start you off with a reasonably powerful, flexible character and let you eventually become a God of War. MMORPGs start you off with the sort of character that a Peon from Warcraft could beat the crap out of in two seconds and then let you, over the course of many months, develop a reasonably powerful, flexible character... i.e., Cloud and Squall at Level 1.

      This is why I actually have some hope for World of Warcraft. The previews and now the beta writeups have given me a lot of hope for the game, because they show that you can actually start with a character who is reasonably powerful and flexible. One writer on Warbucket.com explained how, over the course of just five hours, he attained a character with a decent ranged attack spell, a must-have defensive spell, a DOT (Damage Over Time) spell, and a cool little minion who is perpetually on fire. All that, and now he's only a few hours away from having another pet, which is a hulking mass of shadows that can fight for him and act as a meat shield. He's not a god, but he has a lot more flexibility than the Star Wars Galaxies players, who had to wait many months just to get a lightsaber and some basic force powers. This is the way that it SHOULD be, with the developers taking the time to design and balance a happy medium between a world of worthless, bored peons and a world of immortal super-gods.

    22. Re:Maybe... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      Well, you sum up one of the problems with MMORPGs - when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.

      With truly creative design this isn't a problem. The universe is a big place. Even limiting the Star Wars universe to the handful of planets currently in the game, we're talking (assuming modern-Earth densities) billions of people. Given the limited number of players on a given server (thousands) you can still be one-in-a-million.

      One of the problems with MMORPGS is that they are some sort of bizarro world where the basic economy is apparently run by a few hundred people across the world. That's silly. We need huge, NPC populated cities. Sure, most of them won't have anything to say, but they'll give the cities a sense of size. Furthermore, it means that players won't in generally see each other unless they seek each other out. On the whole, seeing other players going about their lives is boring, as well as slightly disbelief destroying. Other people are only fun when you're interacting with them; you don't interact with most players on your server. When I head online I should get together with my friends, or perhaps head to the known hero-hangouts (Rebel Base, Imperial Recruiting center) where I can meet other heroes or be assigned to missions. Then it's off to our own little section of world with almost no chance of encountering anyone else. In one part of the world we could be heroes! For a game that pulled this off I would cheerfully pay $20 a month.

      (To be fair, I'm hand-waving a number of tricky problems. This sort of system really means dynamically generated cities, population, and general world, but it's a solvable problem.)

  7. Re:Honestly by DaLiNKz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    there is a difference between a game where you have 8 players and a game that you have 10,000+ players per server..

    --
    I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
  8. Open source when it's profitable... by Anubis333 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    It's interesting how they will turn to some open source alternatives for file distribution (Torrent), alleviating the strain from their network, but vehemently attack others who try to improve the gaming experience and lessen the strain from their network.

    1. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An all too common occurence. Youll find its the same with pretty much all companies. A company has no morals - its sole purpose for existence is to make money. The only difference is whether the employees of the company have ethics or not. For example, do you think IBM actively promote Linux because they believe in Free Software idealogy? No, its because they see big $ signs. In the case of Blizzard, they are out to make the $'s, except they are far less subtle about the way they treat Free Software.

    2. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots, They crack down on non bnet servies because they dont block unsold cd keys. They are just a place for Open source bitches that are to lazy to get a job or pay for software that had hours of work and time put in to it. You think that minute amount of traffic they lift from bnet is going to cover the cost of the amount of free copys that are out there that people are using to avoid paying for blizzards games? Loser get a job.

    3. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Disevidence · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you purposely leave out the other 50% of the argument and mislead people, or are you just ignorant?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    4. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      bnetd didn't check CD-keys, because BLIZZARD DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO.

      Now, what would getting a job (more) help me playing my bought and paid for copy of starcraft on a server that actually works, instead of getting connection lost / connection failed even before finishing typing the password on the official Battle Net servers?

      As it is now, StarCraft is single player only, unless at a LAN party. Bnetd could have changed that, turning StarCraft into a real multiplayer game, which would have helped me convince everyone else to buy a copy. But no, Blizzard apparently doesn't want our money, and I am not going to buy another single player game (WarCraft), and LAN parties are too far between to spend the money. Actually, I probably won't buy another Blizzard game at all.

    5. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by SupaMegaBuffalo · · Score: 1

      Wow, a company trying to be profitable? That just boggles the mind.

    6. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by tokaok · · Score: 1

      lay off the whole bnetd ordeal. the soel reason they dont like bnetd is that it lets people with pirated copies of their games play online just as easily as paying customers. //bnetd does not do a cdkey verification.

    7. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blizzard just gets a little 'governmental' for lack of a better term.

      They didnt like the free battle net software because
      1. they couldn't control the gaming experience/viruses downloaded through it, etc.
      2. they couldn't advertise for their games and other stuff inside of it.

      The downloading software portion does not directly bring in any money, so they might as well use torrent. Not to mention if you used blizzards torrent you know it first involves downloading their torrent program, which is another place they can put advertisements...

      They only want it if they can control it.

    8. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by MoZ-RedShirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's all about control. The just want to control who plays their games. They don't care if you have their client software. They even want you to get it somewhere else but not from their servers to save them bandwidth.

      But on the other hand they want you to only be able to play on their servers with their serial number so they know who you are, when you play, what you do (remember Warcraft III needs local admin rights on windows, so it could theoretically read your whole harddisk and registry), and most importantly that you payed for your serial number.

      And that's why they want to get rid of the free bnetd server. It lets you play without control and without a serial number.

      RedShirt

      --
      Microsft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!!
    9. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by rufo · · Score: 1

      remember Warcraft III needs local admin rights on windows, so it could theoretically read your whole harddisk and registry

      So does every other game in existence that has copy protection on the CD.

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    10. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Rallion · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, when your prime concern is preventing piracy, turning over key check methods to another party is a fantastic idea!

    11. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      So what? The bnetd people developed that code on their own, and Blizzard has exactly zero right to stop them from distributing it. This is *exactly* as if Ford were trying to tell you that you could only use Ford-approved tires on your car.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    12. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BNetd offered to include CDKey checking and Blizz turned them down

    13. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They said they would link it to the official server, or do anything at all to implement it. Blizzard are the ones that were assholes and said no to any and all solutions

    14. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by katarac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like my friends who will make a copy of a Mustang and drive it around instead of buying a real one, but then they can't use Ford tires, so they try to use free tires from another company.... oh yeah, car analogies suck.

    15. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by dbc001 · · Score: 0

      Either way, I will not buy another Blizzard game until they fix the damage they did with Bnetd. Withdrawing the lawsuit is not sufficient. The "Chilling Effect" is what happens when people stop working on innovative projects for fear of being sued. Not to mention that they probably really messed up the Bnetd guys lives for a few months.

      Don't buy from Blizzard if you have principles. If you want to support predatory, litigous lawsuit-driven businesses, then go ahead and buy Blizzard's games. I prefer to support respectable companies like Id Software. If they cross the line, I'll stop buying their games as well.

    16. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Wind_Walker · · Score: 1
      If you think BNet.d was about "lessening strain from their network" or "improving the gaming experience" you're dead wrong. It was about being able to play a game you didn't pay for. Blizzard servers are not strained, they work just fine. The only possible reason for playing on Bnet.d was to play with illegally-obtained software.

      Christ, you probably also think that virus writers are writing them because they want to check the security of Windows.

    17. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, wrong! I guess you're a complete newb to battle.net. Remember Diablo? At first stability was ok, but in more popular days, battle.net got up to about 7000-9000, and those were quite unstable numbers of people at the time. Then came starcraft, in comparison, Diablo averaged about 3000, starcraft shot the number up to 90,000 in the short year. Stability was non-existent the first year. This is what inspired bnetd, in April 98! (mind you it took blizzard 4 years to get "serious" about it) meanwhile, over the course of the next two years, Starcraft shot the numbers of users to about 350,000 especially when korens started to play. Then came Diablo 2, and even though they stressed tested it, and split battle.net up, they got far more than 100,000. I think they got 200,000 each on the US servers, and probably 100,000 on the others, during the first year. Constant disconnections, etc, during these releases. Things started to stablize by the time War3 beta hit. Now you might have a case if bnetd
      actually was able to host the war3 beta, but it didn't, and _never_ did. The bnetd developers were so adament on not supporting a beta even before blizzard stepped in! So now what's left with your argument?

      No, you don't need bnetd to pirate a blizzrad game. It doesn't facilitate in piracy. Posting game images, cd-keys, and cracks do. To play online, you can tunnel, or in the case of D2, play directly. Bnetd is a service, not a piracy tool.

      I've played on bnetd in the past, and I didn't pirate the games. I have copies to all the blizzard games I bought in the past. Does your argument make sense now? NO.

    18. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Do you think that Microsoft should go after Samba?

    19. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      Ok, well good for you. In the end its your loss. You choose the beds you sleep in, so have fun.

    20. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why don't you get out the tinfoil hat already. If Blizzard wanted to steal information from you, they'd probably go about it by taking advantage of one of the numerous software holes in Windows.

      Blizzard doesn't really care who you are. Of course, they care about when you log on, and what type of character you play, and all that jazz. This allows them to do a number of things to enhance the game playing experience. Think about it...

      They know when you log on. This lets them map out peak times of connectivity, so you don't have to play with massive amounts of lag. The Battle.Net servers have been somewhat laggy recently, but it's not bad for something that is provided for free. They also would like to know what times are the peaks of activity because they probably bill those ad companies for time, and base the price off of the load on the server.

      Blizzard wants to make sure that you own the game that you're playing. Why is this such a problem? If I wrote some software, and sold it, I would probably want to implement a relatively easy but effective way of ensuring that the product isn't being stolen. As it is, since I own my copy of Diablo II, I don't have to worry whether I can play on Battle.Net or not.

      Lastly, Blizzard wants to enhance the game itself. This is based, in part, by it's knowledge of what you play, what you use, etc. Balance is a key part of the game... getting it to the point where the game is a challenge to get to the point of greatness, but once greatness is achieved, the sense of accomplishment is high. Having a level 50 sorcerous, for instance, is a rather enjoyable thing... even if you do die frequently enough in nightmare and hell difficulties. From what I know, the last update that Blizzard made to Diablo II basically changed the entire game. There's always new things being added, there's always security problems being fixed, and there are always new avenues for creating characters being made.

      Tell me, then, why should Blizzard be denied the rights to control their own software?

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    21. Re:Open source when it's profitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else feel like going out and buying Blizzard games by the barrowfull after that? I know I do!

  9. Re:Blizzard can rot by cyrax777 · · Score: 1

    I belive WoW is going to be running on another network on not Battlenet to keep the traffic flow on bnet down could be wrong thu.

  10. Shameless by Bill_Royle · · Score: 4, Informative

    And already, some idiot is auctioning off his beta test account...

    Ebay auction

    1. Re:Shameless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That right there is a blatant violation of the beta EULA. Heheh.

      Go capitalism!

    2. Re:Shameless by toriver · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and another idiot is already posting a link to the auction on Slashdot... :)

    3. Re:Shameless by Bill_Royle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing wrong with capitalism - but it's probably safe to say (considering their past) that Blizzard could easily make this guy's life difficult. Why someone would be dumb enough to do this is beyond me, aside from the need for cash. And considering the high profile that this release has, the seller might have to make some additional cash to settle, if Blizzard is as cranky as usual.

    4. Re:Shameless by oacis · · Score: 1

      I like the game, but ...

      If you have a good look at the current bidding price: US $99,999,900.00

      you would think that you would just buy the whole Blizzard studios - then you could do all the testing that you want!

      --
      This is NOT the best sig in the world, but this IS a tribute to the best sig in the world.
    5. Re:Shameless by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Informative
      Scroll a litter further down and you'll see:

      "This account is no longer for sale. Don't send me any further emails. Thanks."

    6. Re:Shameless by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Same idiot? hhmmmm

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Shameless by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      Check out the auction. I wonder who bid $100 million for a beta test account. I ask you, is this WoW, or is it really LoL?

    8. Re:Shameless by technostarix · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a sign that the game really is going to be damn good?

  11. Re:Honestly by Quobobo · · Score: 1

    It's not Warcraft Warcraft (with commanding armies, building forts), it's more of a traditional MMORPG in the Warcraft world. Commanding big armies around in a world with hundreds of other people would be neat, but probably unfeasible.

  12. Re:Honestly by d_strand · · Score: 4, Informative

    What are you talking about? WoW is an RPG, not an RTS. It has nothing in common with the mechanics of the original warcraft games. To be clear: You dont order groups of units around, you play a single character at a time.

  13. So whats new in this game? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seriously. The trade skill system looks like they ripped it off of UO (which I actually love and look forward to, but still not unique), and unless combat and magic are somehow revolutionary, I'd really like someone to explain why I should get this game above another MMORPG.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:So whats new in this game? by Quobobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll be buying it based on Blizzard's track record with excellent games and their excellent support for the Mac. That's probably not the answer you're looking for, but I have yet to be disappointed by a Blizzard title.

    2. Re:So whats new in this game? by Disevidence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because its in a well established universe with a good backdrop, made by a respected games company, and said company normally produces games that are entertaining and polished.

      It doesn't sound revolutionary, but rather it takes most of the good aspects of other MMORPG's, and puts into neatly into one package.

      So far of course. Beta testing will let the community see.

      Blizzard haven't made a misstep yet, in my humble opinion.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    3. Re:So whats new in this game? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      All the modern games are simple evolutions of their progenitors. The reason to choose this version of an RPG over others is the quality of the polish that Blizzard will provide to the genre. They always release cracking good software and I see no reason to believe this game will be any different.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:So whats new in this game? by asilidae · · Score: 0

      Well first of all its a brand new MMOG based on the warcraft story. Of course not all elements of this game is revolutionary, but its silly to ask for that. Its a new story, new adventures.

      Do you ask that any text you read must be revolutionary? If so then i bet you dont read a whole lot.

      --
      Whats a sig? And how do i append it?
    5. Re:So whats new in this game? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      What has Blizzard ever produced that was revolutionary? Their business is taking existing ideas and perfecting them.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:So whats new in this game? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Exactly! I'm a Mac user, I'd love to play a MMORPG, and I'm sure not going to go out and buy a damn Windows computer just for playing a video game. WoW is what I've been waiting for. Also, it doesn't hurt that
      1. It's put out by Blizzard, who has made some of my very favorite games of all time
      2. Warcraft III and the expansion had great story lines with interesting twists. Be nice to see what they come up with for a MMORPG
      3. They've included some new ideas that will hopefully fix a lot of the problems from other MMORPGs such as:
        1. Instantiated dungeons: no more kill stealing/loot stealing
        2. Best loot comes from quests: no more 'camp the best drop spot'
        3. Non-repeatable quests: camping the best quest giver won't help...better get out and explore
      My credit card is at the ready. Blizzard, finish this game!
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:So whats new in this game? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      I'd say the best reason to buy it is that it was developed and alpha tested with one goal: to create a game that was constantly fun. Many games, especially MMORPGs, have lots of aspects that are just tedious, but they're done everything they can to make sure you don't have that problem in WoW.

      They don't use D&D style or really anything like it, a Paladin is not the same as in aother game, neither are dwarves or elves. It's really an incredibly unique gameworld. That's nice too, I think, to play a game that doesn't have the same feel as all the others.

    8. Re:So whats new in this game? by macrom · · Score: 1

      Best loot comes from quests: no more 'camp the best drop spot'

      I've never understood this philosophy, and it is somewhat flawed with respect to Everquest. Now instead of people camping a single spawn, they're camping multiple spawns looking for multiple "no drop" items to complete a quest. Hang out in some of the bigger zones and listen to people shouting for the rare drops to complete a quest because Sony decided to "fix" camping issues.

    9. Re:So whats new in this game? by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

      A lot of the in-game systems like alchemy and such seem ripped off of The Elder Scrolls, the latest of which is Morrowind.

    10. Re:So whats new in this game? by Colazar · · Score: 1
      I'd love to recommend Shadowbane to you while you're waiting. It's been buggy enough lately that I can't quite do that whole-heartedly, (believe it or not, there was a time when the Mac version was much more stable than the PC version) but they do let you download and try it out for a month for free. So it might be worth a look while you're waiting.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    11. Re:So whats new in this game? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      However, in an MMORPG, where you are but one face in a sea of thousands, how important will the story be to gameplay. When I played Anarchy Online, they had a story, but it really didn't affect my gameplay at all, and it never really made a difference. A new story and new adventures are not enough to make me buy a game personally. I don't ask that all text I read must be revolutionary, but this isn't text. It is a MMORPG, and all of the previous ones have failed to hold my interest for a significant amount of time. I've kept going back to UO just because of their trade skill system, so hopefully that is pretty fun in WoW.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    12. Re:So whats new in this game? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Being am EQ player, I just wanted to comment on a couple points:

      1. Instantiated dungeons: no more kill stealing/loot stealing

      I think LDoN came out about a year ago. That was the expansion to EQ that added this kind of feature to the game.

      2. Best loot comes from quests: no more 'camp the best drop spot'

      The best loot in EQ comes from instanced raid zones that are quest-like, and involve story-line-tied flagging to gain access.

      3. Non-repeatable quests: camping the best quest giver won't help...better get out and explore

      I liked LDoN's approach to this, though it had some flaws. For starters, items are dropped inside the instanced single-party zones, but there are also items that you can "buy" with points that you
      get for successful missions.

      So for example, you might finish 10 adventures (missions) and get 100 points each for them. That gives you 1000 to spend total, and 1000 "lifetime earned" for this particular quest-giver. You can spend the points with ANY quest-giver, but only up to a per-purchase maximum of the lifetime earned with that quest-giver. Since every quest-giver has unique items to sell, you have to do lots of missions for all of them if you want to be able to pick-and-choose.

      This gives you incentive to move around and experiment with different adventures, and keeps it from getting too boring too fast (and there are hundreds of zones to go explore if you get bored).

  14. Pre-order=beta access? by BobSutan · · Score: 0

    I thought they opened the Beta to anyone who pre-ordered the game with Blizzard? Maybe this isn't the game I'm thinking of then...

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    1. Re:Pre-order=beta access? by ANY5546 · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of lineage 2 (www.lineage2.com) by NC Soft :)

      --
      http://www.freepokerchipset.info
    2. Re:Pre-order=beta access? by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

      City of Heroes has a preorder->beta system setup, as well.

    3. Re:Pre-order=beta access? by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      My bad. That's the one I was thinking of.

      Personally I despise paying for an online game. I just don't see the point in paying a monthly fee for it if I'm already paying to get the game itself?! Besides, IMHO there are already tons of games out there that provide multiplayer for free. My only fear is that monthly fees for online content will spread into the traditional multiplayer arena.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    4. Re:Pre-order=beta access? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      In this case, I'll pay for it. At least at first. I think that it's justified, because you aren't JUST paying for access, you're paying for support, for (most likely) damn good servers using sophisticated techniques, and most importantly more content. BLizzard's creating a huge team just to provide patches, content, plot development and other changes for many years to come--the plot is already planned out for three years in advance, including the opening of the Dark Portal and the world of Dreannor. Oh yeah.

      Anyway...I do understand the concern about the model sprewading to other arenas...but I think it's not something we really need to worry about. Most games these days run on independent servers. Blizzard themselves provide the best gaming service around, IMO, and it's free and will stay that way for the forseeable future. That's one of those things they're dedicated to, and it will make many pay services look bad by comparison. Again, I see where you're coming from, but it'll take more than a slew of MMORPGs to change the system.

    5. Re:Pre-order=beta access? by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      What I meant was that I'm afraid companies will cease independent multiplayer support (such as individual servers) in favor of locking their online play into entities like The Zone, MPlayer, etc. and then charging us out the wazoo to use them.

      I admit, for something like that to happen a lot would have to change from the way multiplayer is viewed today. In addition to that they'd have to be providing a whole lot more content that whats available today. And to make that last point a reality they'd have to virtually eliminate user created content, which is something I dont see going away anytime soon due to the outcry and backlash most game developers would recieve from today's gaming community. Of course there are the publishers holding the proverbial carrot on a stick in front of the development houses making them do things they don't want. I can see the development teams crying, "it was the publisher that made us do it", kinda like the securom fiasco with Ubisoft.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  15. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Isn't this a MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role playing game) based in the Warcraft universe? It's not a massive real-time strategy game like some supersized Warcraft. It's just set in the same universe.

  16. Is this gonna be like Diablo II? by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember when that first came out it ran like crap over bnet and they weren't expecting it to be as hard on their servers. Are they gonna test this with like 10,000 people and open it up to over 1,000,000 when it's finally released and realized hey this wasn't such a good idea we should have done more testing?

    1. Re:Is this gonna be like Diablo II? by andr0meda · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I remember when that first came out it ran like crap over bnet and they weren't expecting it to be as hard on their servers. Are they gonna test this with like 10,000 people and open it up to over 1,000,000 when it's finally released and realized hey this wasn't such a good idea we should have done more testing?


      Yeah. What numbers do you suggest? In reality, online mmorpgs are in a constant beta phase (content wise) anyway, and both the client and server systems are constantly tweaked and enhanced during the lifetime. You really can't know what to expect just by testing alone, you have to run it live under real-live circumstances. There is a fine line to walk between beta and 'gold', the differnce being mainly that beta is a way to get people's interest without making money, but also without pretending to run crash free or sluggish. If all goes well for Blizzard, the gold version is allmost exactly like the beta, but then usually beta players expect 'huge' improvements to continue with their accounts, and that's why things can get quite shakey.

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
    2. Re:Is this gonna be like Diablo II? by ogewo · · Score: 1

      Like other modern MMORPGs, WoW will require a monthly fee, which insures that we get quality servers. For Diablo II, Blizzard could only provide servers that could be purchased and upkept from the game's initial $40 purchase price.

    3. Re:Is this gonna be like Diablo II? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, this is usually how it's done. It would be unmanagable with a million beta testers.

      Blizzard themselves admitted this problem though and said it was because they had anticipated more players to go single player first. (remember it was released when analog modems were still most common) Instead, an overwhelming amount of players went online.

      They won't have this problem this time around, since they know everyone will play online from the start and should be able to dimension the server capacity easier.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  17. Don't worry by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

    Warforge will open the beta...

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you were joking, but nothing short of taking over blizz's servers will let that fiasco happen for this game, I think.

  18. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Bigger game size? More players to fight? More opportunities? What exactly makes it more boring than a game that has 8 players?

  19. Overhyped crap by Nakanai_de · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Is precisely the reason why the best thing to do whenever a game like this is released is to wait a few months before buying it. In addition to the advantage of seeing how the hype meshes with reality, there's the added advantage of having the later version patches available. Let other people find the bugs for you. The prestige one gets as an early adopter just isn't worth the monetary price or less-refined level of quality that comes with it (IMO).

    --

    Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.

    1. Re:Overhyped crap by media_Assassin · · Score: 1

      If you plan on becoming a hard-core player, I think the opposite is true ... if you're not there from the begining, you're at a disadvantage. The strategy guides (if you're into such things) only apply to the way things are at first - they don't keep with the balance issues. So joining in months later means you're not working with valid information. If you're interested in tradecraft, there's a definate advantage to starting when the game starts ... say it takes 2 months to become a "master" of a few skills ... those starting at the begining will become the popular merchants of crafted items. With things like housing, those on the system early will have a better chance of getting the necessary money, and their pick of "good spots".

      I don't know of anyone who plays MMORG's who would say you could start playing any time and be on a "level playing field."

    2. Re:Overhyped crap by Nitar · · Score: 1

      If you are a hardcore player, you generally won't be using a strategy guide to start with. Strategy guides for MMO games are out of date by the time they are printed. The only way to keep up is to read patch notes, and a strategy website that keeps up to date data.

    3. Re:Overhyped crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of NDA would also probably help, since now people other than the beta-testers can also comment, which is an added necessisity, since theoretically, it's the people who aren't playing yet, that can contribute to the game's success by joining.

      Besides, an NDA would almost be useless since with a MMO of this magnitude, there's is too high a probability that information will be leaked out irregardless.

  20. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suggestion to moderators... find out what the game actually is before modding up comments that flame it for being something it is not.

    WoW *is* a role-playing game. It just shares the same world as Warcraft.

    It's like Starcraft becoming a first person shooter in the form of Starcraft: Ghost.

  21. Re:FreeC**** by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FreeC**** is not really shut down, it is named stratagus now. There is also a game named Magnant(www.insectwar.com) which isn't free though but based on stratagus. Probably means more trouble to come when someone will try to freeclone Magnant.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  22. Yup it sure is. by OgreFade · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read it on their forum. Completely seperate. http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?FN=wow- general&T=715&P=1&ReplyCount=5#post715 See.

  23. Re:Honestly by instanto · · Score: 1

    It kinda looks like "warcraft 3 meets Cartoons meets another camp-the-spawn-level-threadmill-game", but I suppose the beta will be fun, assuming my internet connection gets up and I have been picked.

    Do they send out emails TODAY to the lucky 'winners', or have they been sent out ages ago?

    --
    // instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
  24. Have you seen the videos? by OgreFade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The gryphon riding looks really cool. Another thing that seems rather inventive is the death system, where upon your death you become a ghost and wander/go resurrect yourself. That seems interesting to me, and it'll be fun to see mountain giants from UNDER their nose, rather than from DOWN their nose. It seems to look good, I'll have to get the game before I can tell any more really.

    1. Re:Have you seen the videos? by flewp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another thing that seems rather inventive is the death system, where upon your death you become a ghost and wander/go resurrect yourself.

      I haven't seen the videos yet, but the way you describe it doesn't seem that inventive. In Ultima Online, when you die, you become a ghost and have to wonder around and look for a healer to bring you back to life. Once brought back to life, you can go back to your corpse and grab your stuff, assuming someone else hasn't looted it.

      Or at least that's the way it was when I played a few years ago.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    2. Re:Have you seen the videos? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I think it would be more interesting if you had to get the healer to go back to your corpse to resurrect you. It only makes sense, right? I mean... If a healer resurrected your ghost on the spot, you or the healer should be able to design the new body that you're going into.

      Hmm. That could be cool. You could have wierd maniacal healers that construct golems, and go out and capture spirits and imprison them in an artificial body. Then again, you could also have the healer that follows you ghost and loots your ass while your ghost is watching. I also like the idea of haunting someone into retrieving your body, bringing you to a healer, getting you resurrected, then marrying and having a happy ending.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    3. Re:Have you seen the videos? by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the videos yet, but the way you describe it doesn't seem that inventive. In Ultima Online, when you die, you become a ghost and have to wonder around and look for a healer to bring you back to life. Once brought back to life, you can go back to your corpse and grab your stuff, assuming someone else hasn't looted it.

      According to the design plan for WoW's final death system, dying will resurrect you as a ghost in a complete "ghost world", which will look slightly different from the normal world and be populated by not only your fellow ghost players, but also ghost NPCs, some of which can send you on ghost quests. In other words, they're trying to make it interesting enough that you not only won't mind dying, but you'll be interested in dying in new and different places, and will often be convinced to stay there and hang out for awhile if you don't have anything better to do. Also, if I remember correctly, they're also thinking about giving some classes the ability to see ghosts while using certain spells, which would let them interact with both worlds simultaneously.

      Blizzard seems to be planning on having a few of these "alternate worlds" (so to speak) by making separate areas that certain players can only visit under certain circumstances. In addition to the ghost world and the basic separation between Horde and Alliance cities, the underwater areas are another semi-restricted area. The Undead are the only ones that can hang out underwater unassisted, which means that there will be plenty of them under there, but Warlocks (the wizards of evil and death and such) of all races will be able to cast a spell that lets them and their friends travel underwater.

      So yeah, the ghost thing is an old idea, but in typical Blizzard fashion, they've polished it into something much more complex and useful.

  25. Re:Blizzard can rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, duh. Battle.net is a free service, whereas WoW is a monthy pay service. Obviously its going to be in a network separate of battle.net to serve paying customers.

  26. NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is bad, bad news. Now the game is one day closer to being finished which means it's one day closer to when I can buy it, which means it's one day closer to the day I won't be able to leave my computer ever again.

    Blizzard game are like the purest of drugs. I got hooked on WarCraft I by a free demo in the store (the first one is always free) and I've been a junkie ever since.

    My lowest moment ever was turning down sex with my girlfriend the first week that Warcraft III came out because I didn't want to step away from the game. I fear it will be even worse with World of Warcraft. : (

    -Colin

    1. Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      Can't speak for WoW, but I've found that playing a necromancer in D2 opens up more than enough free time in the game for a quickie. You could actually get some *AND* make lunch during some parts of Hell, with enough enemies on the screen.

      --trb

    2. Re:NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! by oldManSquad · · Score: 1
      My lowest moment ever was turning down sex with my girlfriend the first week that Warcraft III came out because I didn't want to step away from the game.

      Man, surely closing down a media player wasnt that hard...

  27. er tu? by Disevidence · · Score: 0

    Does anyone actually see how it could be fun to make a random, uninformed early post? I enjoy early posts that are based in information or have reasoning.. but the idea of actually thinking about what im writing in this website just don't really appeal to me.

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  28. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the game involves commanding groups of crap. ?

  29. Let me get this straight.... by John+Courtland · · Score: 1, Funny

    You, a seemingly regular (over 650 posts with a highish UN) Slashdot poster, DENIED sex.... WITH A CONSENTING FEMALE!!!! You've got some nerve, posting that on here... ;) But seriously, that is pretty low man, most girls would be gone at that point :P.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    1. Re:Let me get this straight.... by CGP314 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It wasn't a proud moment, but it happened.

      Remarkably, we stayed togeather for a long time afterward. I was very lucky. : )

    2. Re:Let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, a seemingly regular (over 650 posts with a highish UN) Slashdot poster, DENIED sex.... WITH A CONSENTING FEMALE!!!!

      You seem to forget about the quality of women most slashdotters attract.

      I don't mean to be cruel, but there's a reason they invented beer. ;)

  30. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can we have a -1, Completely Misinformed mod option?

  31. Wait... I thought we were At War With Blizzard by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Over them suing bnetd?

    Well, I guess posting all those snippy comments on Slashdot really showed them who was boss. So now it's back to the usual fawning at their feet, is it?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Wait... I thought we were At War With Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you sound like more of a dick here than you do at k5 or plastic.

      It must have something to do with your failure to understand that slashdot isn't a hive mind.

      But I'm sure the penny will drop, sooner or later.

  32. Comments from an Alpha Tester... by IanDanforth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since I was playing in Alpha I can give everyone a bit of insight as to what WoW is like. First off Blizzard has done a simply wonderful job. The game runs smoothly and if the server crashes, which it may occasionally, its back up in no time. The game play stretches from the familiar, where it has been perfected, to the brand new, to the silly (fishing). The graphics are wonderful and go more for style than realism, which is appropriate to Warcraft. The feedback mechanisms are streamlined, the download process is excellent (if long). The game holds you by the hand a bit much, but other than that I can't really complain. There will be a simply massive amount of info coming out in the next few days from Alpha testers freed of NDA's. So check out the shots and descriptions and see for yourself. Its a great game. Period. -Ian

    1. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any info on the gameplay side of things, not the technical stuff? The technical stuff usually gets sorted over time; it's the gameplay that usually doesn't work out. How different is it from the current MMORPGs? What are the "brand new" parts?

    2. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by MooCows · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing the information :)

      But what I'm really interested in, is to know how the leveling system works.
      The no.1 reason why I get frustrated by most MMORPG's is the extremely tedious system of leveling. (which usually consists of killing the same type of creature for days on end)

      Take Lineage2 for example.
      It's a very pretty game, with lots of potential (great engine)
      But I stopped playing once I spent 2 nights getting my character up above lvl5 (by killing the same types of creatures over and over, which did not feel very rewarding) only to be stomped down by another rampant playerkiller.

      I hope that, for once, some developer will break the mold and invent a fun way to level.
      Since I enjoy the social interaction of MMORPG's, I enjoy item hunting, quests, guilds, etc. but I certainly don't enjoy those boring levelling systems.

      It's not that I don't want to put effort into getting a higher level character, it's just that most games don't make the levelling system rewarding enough. (not at all actually)

      --
      The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
      30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
    3. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by rale,+the · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was also in the alpha, so I can give you a bit more info. The best part about wow to me, is the quest system. Its very nicely done, and you get a large amount of experience (along with items and/or cash) for completing most quests. The quests vary from killing a number of a specific monster, to exploring an area, and to collecting a number of specific drops. There are also some more interesting quests, such as protecting an npc while he walks from one place to another and gets ambushed by some bad guys, or others where you have a limited time (complete with a timer on screen) to kill a few things. Leveling ends up revolving around completing quests, and you can pretty much always have a goal for various quests, instead of just killing stuff over and over.

      I've played a number of mmorpg (way too much eq, played ao some, daoc, ffxi), and wow is definately the game to look forward to. If the quality of content I've seen extends all the way to the higher levels, it should be a great game.

    4. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a simply massive amount of info coming out in the next few days from Alpha testers freed of NDA's.

      They will actually be beta testers freed of NDA's. Even better :)

    5. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by haystor · · Score: 1

      Here is my idea:

      Players play the mobs. Have one specific zone where a player can enter and be a monster or fight the monsters. Give xp to whoever lives and xp just for participating. This should be done in a way to encourage a battle royale where the players fight the same mobs as normal but they will of course be much smarter. Another benefit is the large variety that a player could have access to.

      If I had the choice of killing 1000 rats again or of getting a bunch of friends and playing rabid wolves and hunting down adventurers, I know what I'd pick.

      I know EQ had something like this, but the player's only satisfaction there was ganking low levels, they didn't get xp for their character.

      --
      t
    6. Re:Comments from an Alpha Tester... by nytmare · · Score: 1

      How is the 3D interface -- does it emphasize third-person, top-down, or first-person view? (I really like EQ's emphasis on first-person view and never liked any game that defaulted to third.)

  33. I'm anticipating Guild Wars at least as much by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone noticed Guild Wars?

    Developed by ex-Blizzard employees, and in the same spirit as Battle.net in terms of a free multiplayer service. New extra features can be bought (this is how the MMOG is financed), but they won't be necessary to play with those who have them.

    It has pretty graphics too. :-) The gallery is all unretouched graphics with interesting lightning effects making some people think they were post-processed.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:I'm anticipating Guild Wars at least as much by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Sorry -- I meant to tell how this relates to this WoW news. Well, I personally like non-pay to play games, and these guys should stand for similar polish as Blizzard is known for. It has several things in common with Diablo II as well, so it could finally become the D2 killer I've been waiting for. Scheduled for release Q3 this year.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:I'm anticipating Guild Wars at least as much by lee7guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This image brings up an interesting subject.

      Why the hell are most hand held weapons (swords, clubs, etc.) used by characters in 3D fantasy games as big as themselves? Do game developers have any idea how heavy a sword that big would be?

      Ahh, ok, it's a magical sword. That explains it. Too bad the other swords marked as "not magical" are as big and carried the same way.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    3. Re:I'm anticipating Guild Wars at least as much by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the fact that the sword is too big really detracts from the realism, especially with the giant yellow green thing behind him making me feel like i'm right back on earth. That and the fact that he'll be swinging at goblins and man sized forest animals. Damn swords just ruin and otherwise realistic game.

      By the way I think there were some two handed swords that were around 4 feet long and weighed around 10 to 12 pounds, but probaby were not as wide as the one in that picture. I could be wrong on that though, don't feel like checking :)

    4. Re:I'm anticipating Guild Wars at least as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some two handed swords of the medieval times were 6foot (and more). They were designed to take out the long spikes some of the foot soldiers were using with big wide strokes. They you'd continue with your big wide strokes through the foot soldier.

      They were also handy to go through the armor of another knight as you needed a lot of weight to make a dent on those things.

  34. BNETD was here by Guardian+of+Terra · · Score: 0

    ~ 2 years ago, they released Warcraft III beta. .iso was widely avaliable, but only cd-key owners could play (it was battle.net-only version). But there was bnetd, free (GPLd) battle.net daemon, that made play possible. So, all the network played warcraft iii beta all the way. Blizzard had even to enable up to 5 playters on 1 cd-key. Anyway, after game was out, #1 of official battle-net and #1 of unoficial servers was equal in skills, in first encounter bnetd player even won. I wonder if there will be something like for this beta. BNETD god sued by blizzard, btw.

    1. Re:BNETD was here by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      Ah, those were fun days. The only time I really ever played WC3, the only time it really had a draw for me, was during the beta, when I played on the unsanctioned servers. The game was spanking new, and there were weekly patches that changed unit balancing. It was great fun, analyzing the changes to figure out who had the unfair advantage at the time ;-). When the humans got call-to-arms, my friends and I figured out an extremely cheap stragegy: build a new human castle right near the enemy's base, perform the call to arms, and do a peasant rush on their undeveloped base! Surprisingly, it worked about 50% of the time (and pissed people off 100% of the time). The adapt-or-perish nature of the beta was what made it so enjoyable to me. Apart from that, I didn't find WC3 all that novel (micro-managing heroes isn't my cup of tea), and I stopped playing pretty soon after it left beta.

      I suppose the point to this post is that beta games can be just as fun, if not more, than the final product. Oh yeah, and Blizzard sucks for going after BnetD.

    2. Re:BNETD was here by Guardian+of+Terra · · Score: 0

      Yes. And that was even more fun since you was first to try it, and because each new patch changed a lot of things (remember when tanks was able to take riflemen in?) Yes, blizzard sucks for that. And now they use challenge-responce like auth (heh, In Soviet Russia, client authenticates server) - no chances for bnetd anyway, 'cause it will require to patch client.

    3. Re:BNETD was here by Zardus · · Score: 0

      The client needed to be patched in the early Warcraft III Beta days too. Later on they just used a loader, but I think it basically loaded the executable into RAM and patched it there. At any rate, an unmodified client couldn't connect to bnetd.

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
    4. Re:BNETD was here by Guardian+of+Terra · · Score: 0

      Yes. But diablo, diablo ii and starcraft are able to connect without any client patching...

  35. Got that beat by Talisman · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was holding flags while playing SubSpace and had been running for about 2 hours. My gf was watching TV in the living room, waiting for me to finish the game and got bored. So to try and convince me to hurry up, she crawled under my desk and started blowing me.

    I kept playing as best I could under the circumstances, and lasted an easy 90 seconds before getting my ship annihilated. I was upset for a few seconds that she ruined my game, but then I came to my senses and bukkake'd her.

    Then started playing again :)

    Talisman

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Got that beat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was holding flags while playing SubSpace and had been running for about 2 hours. My gf

      I believed you up until right there.

  36. Oh my... by sh0dan · · Score: 1

    World of Warcraft, has just reached the live Beta stage, for those select players lucky enough to be picked. My luck must be running out. I just remember the days, when I was lucky enough to be picked to spot bugs in Beta software.

  37. Well.. by eddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't speak for everyone else (amazing that), but I'm still "boycotting". This particular game wasn't anything I'd go for anyhow, but..

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  38. Review from alpha tester by Daniel+Vallstrom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a positive review from an alpha tester.

  39. Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by andy55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once brought back to life, you can go back to your corpse and grab your stuff, assuming someone else hasn't looted it.

    I was a "hardcore" mode Diablo II addict (in HC mode, you only get one life to live and when you die, that's it--you lose everytihng and you're level one again). I'd go for days w/ minimal food and rest--it was insane. Anyway, that's beside the point--I never had more fun with a game. It was the first time a modern game went beyond a FPS shooter game (ie, instant action), while combining a persistent character, while causing you to exhibit real survival-like behavior. When I played for those hours--and days straight--I was having *tons* of fun and laughs constantly and consistently...

    So many of these games these days have you sit there for hours w/o even raising your heartbeat--I don't understand how people let themselves play them! In Diablo II hardcore, I'd stand up after a few hours of play and feel like I just had a two hour-long workout (and I'm shape, before you jump on that one).

    Looking back, there wasn't a *single* hour or loss of a character where I didn't have hoots of fun. What other games (and/or game formats) can boast that? Sure, some of the deaths were painful and sad at the equipment I lost, but that's what real battle and gaming is--it goes beyond fun and enters the realm of glory.

    Glory isn't something that you can save to file, accumulate from killing a high xp monster a hundred times using hours of free time, or get from nice equipment. It's when you and a couple others that you've been fighting alongside with rush in a room where the outcome is unknown and is also for keeps--you get one and only one chance. And when you fought off the odds, the glory was yours. And when you didn't, and fought to the end, the glory was still yours. I bowed down--and fell in love--with a game that could let your experience that.

    1. Re:Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by slash-tard · · Score: 1

      It would be nice for them (or any other MMORPG) to have a server dedicated to single death rules. You die, your dead. Then, like you say, high level characters would be really special instead of everyone being a max level whatever.

    2. Re:Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Temple of Elemental Evil also incorporated a D2-like hardcore mode called "Ironman". It's the only way I could play it, for all of the reasons you mentioned.

      There is also a small segment of the MMO community that wants a game with similar rules. The rest of the MMO players seem to view 'permadeath' as disgusting and unfun. I guess they want no real challenge in their march to 1000th level and the Vorpal Sword of Bunny Killing.

      Trials of Ascension, Atriarch, Realms of Torment, Frontier 1859 and a few more MMOs being developed by smaller studios all plan to include some form of permadeath. Not all permanent deaths in these games come about through combat (some are by aging, jury trials for bad players, etc).

      Also, while I've never played it, Star Wars Generation had permadeath for the Jedi class but I understand that's been removed. Let's also not forget the many MUDs that have permadeath as part of the basic play rules.

      Publishers shy away from permadeath for fear of driving away subscribers. Most players don't like permadeath because they take their games too seriously and have no idea what a thrill it is when you absolutely must survive and don't get endlessly resurrected. The probably play their games with cheat codes as well.

    3. Re:Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like nethack

    4. Re:Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just like Nethack, but in real time :)

    5. Re:Death - Diablo II HARDCORE by anethema · · Score: 1

      In shape...a laaaarge rouuund shape. ;)

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  40. Screw Blizzard by Queuetue · · Score: 0, Informative

    This is still the little arm of Vivendi - you may remember them as the company that used the DMCA to kill bnetd and tried to kill freecraft?

    Screw them - playing games isn't important enough to give money to jackholes like this.

    1. Re:Screw Blizzard by SlashdotLemming · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is still the little arm of Vivendi - you may remember them as the company that used the DMCA to kill bnetd and tried to kill freecraft?

      Yeah, but their games are good, so no-one cares. If their games were buggy and sucked, then people would be screaming injustice everytime Blizzard made a move.

    2. Re:Screw Blizzard by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Some people have no principles whatsoever. As long as you keep them fat and happy, they'll take whatever you dish out.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    3. Re:Screw Blizzard by (trb001) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you may remember them as the company that used the DMCA to kill bnetd and tried to kill freecraft?

      Unlike MMORPGs, Blizzard only has the sale of their games to provide revenue. They provide BattleNet free of charge, and it is superb. While bNetd was great and all, it DID make it so people didn't have to buy their game and have a unique cd-key. Having played D2 for a couple of months now (and getting thoroughly addicted to online play on BattleNet), I'm certainly in Blizzard's corner...their games are superb and people should pay what they're worth.

      Could the bnet thing been handled better? I dunno, I didn't hear all the inside info, but I seriously doubt that Blizzard wants to release their cd-key algorithm, and since that's the only way I can see them being happy with bnet, I don't see another way they could have handled it.

      --trb

    4. Re:Screw Blizzard by Queuetue · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thier bad business model isn't a valid reason to remove my rights.

    5. Re:Screw Blizzard by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      Their business model was an excellent and exceedingly fair one. If you bought a copy of legally, you were able to play on BattleNet. BattleNet gives you the option of a private game, a public game, a password restricted game, a game with imposed limits, etc. You have plenty of options and the few times I've had issues with BattleNet, they have been fixed very quickly. bNet didn't provide substantially different services from BattleNet, except that it circumvented duplicate cd-key checks.

      --trb

    6. Re:Screw Blizzard by Queuetue · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Blizzard hinged their business model on something they could not control. They saw it slipping from their grap and were not smart (or decent) enough to solve the problem technically or in a business fashion.

      So they used the courts, and, shotgun style, went after a group that had nothing to do with the problem.

      Bnetd did not pirate games. They did nothing illegal, but provided a tool that others could use - both for legal and illegal uses. Blizzard attacked them and shut them down not because a court said they could, but because the promise of massive legal fees prevented them from defending themselves at the time.

      Blizzard's created a situation where their revenue was easy to circumvent, and then chose to go after a third party, not the lawbreakers, when they started to understand how dumb their business model was.

    7. Re:Screw Blizzard by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      Then don't buy it and don't play. I doubt many people really care if you do or not.

      But don't go out and steal it just to play and then the next day spout off in your holier than thou attitude about bnetd and freecraft.

    8. Re:Screw Blizzard by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      I think you were the first person to mention stealing anything here. I hope people refuse to give Blizzard any support with this - financial or emotional, until they resolve their actions towards others.

      I definitely don't suggest anyone steal anything. I also don't suggest anyone commit copyright violations, which is what copying non-free software is - not robbery. I hope people just avoid Blizzard in general, although of course they're free to do whatever they want.

      You're right that no one will notice my boycotting Blizzard, beyond my friends, who think I'm nuts. But I'm going to refuse to be part of the problem here, and I'm going to try to educate as many people as I can about how they can not contribute to the problem as well.

    9. Re:Screw Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they are covered under the "Pretty Girl" clause?

  41. Hardcore does change your expectations by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

    I was a hardcore mode Diablo addict too. There is a lot to be said for making death a major inconvenience in games. I find that in a lot of games now I reach the "what is the point of this game?" phase a lot more quickly now after playing D2 Hardcore.

    If you can just run in and hack away without regard to strategy because you know death is no big deal, where's the fun? If everyone is running around with ultimate items because it's impossible to permanently lose your gear, where's the game economy?

    D2 Hardcore was perhaps a bit too severe, because you have to recognize that there are times you will die through absolutely no fault of your own, like a lag death or because some loser is using a hack of some type. They should definitely make it more like hardcore than softcore, though, with very serious penalties for character death.

    1. Re:Hardcore does change your expectations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's great...for some players. For the vast majority of the general public who just wants to drop in for a few hours at a time, kill some stuff, get some loot, and get back to work, that doesn't fly. Especially not when you're paying $13.95/month for the privelege. Now, if they had both a softcore and a hardcore WoW server...I could see myself getting into that...

      Again, though, lag death or something would completely piss me off. Spending months building up a character only to die because of packet loss? Bleah.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  42. Whats this "we" stuff? by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I for one was never at war with them, they create awesome games.

    People need to stop thinking of Slashdot as one big collective with the same thoughts and goals. Its a website full of unique people, they think differently.

    Some of them are upset over bnetd, others couldn't care less.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Whats this "we" stuff? by retinaburn · · Score: 0, Troll

      you're new here aren't you.

    2. Re:Whats this "we" stuff? by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Troll

      Please provide me a link to this place you speak. Because the /. I know isn't full of people that think differently, if it was the moderation system would not be used to attack 'wrong' thoughts.

    3. Re:Whats this "we" stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I gathered that it was more a critique of the slashdot editors than of the "collective" (which as you say, doesn't really exist). Slashdot commenters don't have to be consistent but the editors sure should be.

      Though, past criticism has never had any effect on those idiots (do they even bother to read any comments?) so it's hard to see the point anymore.

    4. Re:Whats this "we" stuff? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      And the meta-moderation system used to ensure that only those that comply with the groupthink may continue to moderate.

      Censorship has never looked so democratic!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  43. Linux? by NamShubCMX · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ok I'm sreiously being serious here...

    Is a Linux port planned? I don't care wether it's Transgaming working to make it a "5" on WineX or a company doing the port or Blizzard themselves providing a Linux client, but it is one of the first game I feel like I'm gonna miss :(

    --
    We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    1. Re:Linux? by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      From the FAQ:

      For what platforms will the game be available?
      The game will be available on PCs and the Macs. We are developing both versions simultaneously and will be shipping them at the same time, as with our other recent games.

    2. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The servers are running on Linux and Oracle.

  44. FFXI?? by tonyMontana69 · · Score: 0

    Is this supposed to be better than Final Fantasy XI?

    --
    "My shit always works sometimes!"
  45. Oh, please... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, please. Most games companies would quite happily sell their proverbial grandmother's kideneys or daughters into slavery rather than do the right thing. Blizzard, however, is an exception.

    Time after time, Blizzard has chosen to let a product launch date slide rather than release an incomplete or buggy game. And time after time, when those products have finally been finished they've turned out to be masterpieces.

    Can you name one bad game that Blizzard has made? Can you name another developer that has released three games that have free online multiplayer play that are as popular as Warcraft III, Diablo II and Starcraft? Heck, Starcraft is almost six years old now and Blizzard still supports it! There are even people playing the first Diablo online at Battle.net and how old is that game now?

    Blizzard objected to bnetd because it allowed people to play online without CD key verification (ie, without needing to buy a copy of the games concerned). When you consider that the initial purchase of those games (and the almost unnoticeable banner ads on Battle.net whilst you chat) are the only source of income that Blizzard has, it's hardly surprising that they weren't too keen on an online service that directly threatened their existance.

    If Blizzard has big $ signs permanently on its collective mind as you suggest then perhaps you can explain why it lets people play its games online for free rather than charging a single penny for the privelege?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Oh, please... by DragonMagic · · Score: 1

      I don't know, people will argue that id Software and Epic have made three great games in a row at least (and people still play Doom II online, though not in great enough numbers that anyone would care). But there still are QuakeWorld servers running around, and that game was released in 96, if memory serves me, and not only can you still get the demo CD or buy the game for $10 at most any store, it's now open source (the engine, not the graphics and sounds).

      So, I'd say that at least in this instance, id has done way more for its players than Blizzard. And the most popular game in terms of sales is still The Sims, which will have a sequel this year.

      bnetd wasn't the real reason Blizzard objected to it. bnetd existed for a long time before Blizzard blew the whistle. It was a forked project which released a version that would play the WarCraft III beta, that stirred the trouble. bnetd was included just because now it's a bother that it never checks for CD-Key verification, even though the project has asked, and got rebuked, to include such checks against the main server.

      In this instance, Blizzard is in the wrong. They have *no* guarantee of income after the purchase of a CD. The bnetd server was reverse engineered based on catching the necessary protocol through incoming/outgoing packets. Many people cannot stand the PKers or idiots on Battle.net, and want their own private instances of the gaming service to avoid these. Blizzard won't provide it, so they made their own. Not only this, but the connection IPs are in the registry, NOT in any binary. No modification of the game is necessary.

      Anyways, WoW will cost money. Up front and monthly. No single player. If someone were to figure out how to reverse engineer the server code and create a way for people to have alternate worlds, I'd be willing to sink money into WoW. But I'm not paying a monthly fee to play a game I already bought just because the main company doesn't want me to play anywhere else, even with a local group of friends.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    2. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They have *no* guarantee of income after the purchase of a CD

      they have no guarantee of income if people just download the games and play on something like bnetd. so what if bnetd asked to use the cdkey system? what companies do you know of that would voluntarily give away their copy-protection codes?

    3. Re:Oh, please... by Rallion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's simply no way that Blizzard could let them do key checking without sacrificing security. And even if they did, new servers would be constantly springing up that just had is disabled! (Open source...yaaay...)

      People are quick to say that what they did was wrong, but they're never able to say exactly what would have been right.

    4. Re:Oh, please... by Dragoon412 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      If Blizzard has big $ signs permanently on its collective mind as you suggest then perhaps you can explain why it lets people play its games online for free rather than charging a single penny for the privelege?

      Aside from MMOGs, which include additional content and constant patching, name a game that charges for online play?

      Are the whores at Atari gracious for providing for online play for UT2k4? How about EA with MOHAA?

      Providing a free online gaming environment isn't some generous move on behalf of the developers and producers, it's a lynchpin for selling their games.

      And speaking of Blizzard titles that are bad, just about everything since Warcraft 2 and Diablo has been uninspired tripe. Starcraft is Warcraft with a space theme, and requires about as much of a tactical mindset as walking and breathing at the same time do. Diablo 2 was years late and still came with one of the most wretched skill systems I've ever seen. The 1.10 patch has improved it drastically, but synergies still feel like a cheap fix for a fundamentally FUBARed skill tree. Nevermind the fact that Diablo 2 is (literally) nothing but a skinner box. Click the button, stuff pops out.

      And then there's Warcraft 3, a game with brilliant art but gameplay so antithetical to an actual game, it's a wonder people actually consider it RTS.

      Don't get me wrong, I respect Blizzard for their willingness to put out a sufficiently polished release. I don't think we'll ever see a buggy piece of shit (like EA's constant stream of shovelware) from Blizzard, but they certainly aren't beyond reproach, and definitely don't deserve the pedastal so many gamers place them on.
    5. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. If someone downloads a blizzard game, they do _NOT_ need bnetd to play it. bnetd doesn't facilitate in piracy.

      No, they can still play online without bnetd. They don't need an emulated blizzard server.

      What clearly facilitates piracy is posting game images, cd-keys, and cracks. Not bnetd.

    6. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, when they asked to handled CD-Keys, bnetd said they would forward the CD-Key check to blizzard. So CD-key check would go to battle.net, and it would either give success or failure. Sure, someone could make a client now to scan CD-keys using bnetd code, but it's no different than creating an emulated client and repeatily trying cd-keys on the real battle.net. And since all requests are handled by battle.net, they already have a mechinism to stop that. Ever see a message like "You've connected too many times at once?". So bnetd would have been handling the cd-key just the same way and securely, without knowing any CD-key algorithm, except now it would be able to passively see if it was a good key or not. It's probably a risk anyone takes when connecting to a public server.

      This circumstance would have not made any difference however with the whole issue. People would have pirated the games and played online still, without bnetd. The CD-key checking discussion was just a distraction and
      would have made no difference anyway. Blizzard was wrong on suing still, and they have not done anything right towards bnetd.

    7. Re:Oh, please... by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >Aside from MMOGs, which include additional content and constant patching, name a game that charges for online play?

      Almost ALL FPS games do not provide dedicated servers to play on, such as all the Half-life games, Quake series, UT, Tribes, etc. All the servers and bandwidth are paid for and provided by the gamers. Admittedly not EVERYONE has to pay for the servers, but someone does and it's not the company. Blizzard is one of the few companies that I know of which provides the servers and associated fees but does not charge a fee to play. However I only play FPS online so there may be games and companies in other genres which operate the way you describe, which I don't know about.

      >Starcraft is Warcraft with a space theme, and requires about as much of a tactical mindset as walking and breathing at the same time do.

      Now, I am nowhere near a "good" Starcraft player but even with my limited skills SC requires a tremendous amount of strategy. Choosing to expand too early, or making a wrong unit or building is often the difference between victory and defeat. Some of the things about it bother me, such as ranged units still being able to target enemy melee units which are engaged in combat with 100% accuracy, and a few other things, but in general I think it deserves all the accolades it gets. The rest of the games you mention, I haven't played so I can't comment on them.

      -Comedian

    8. Re:Oh, please... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, none of the Blizzard games actually had a dedicated server run by Blizzard. All that BattleNet really provides is a match-making service, so you can find someone's non-dedicated server to play on. I.e.: they offer for free... the exact same minimal matchmaking service that Id, Epic, EA, Activision, etc, offer for free.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    9. Re:Oh, please... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, here's my take on it.

      We're, sadly, living in an age when shovelling out unfinished and untested buggy crap is not just accepted, but practically _expected_.

      Hordes of drooling fanboys will rush to lynch you in effigy if you dare complain that the game you've paid good money for is buggy. On one bulletin board I've been literally told "Then pack your computer in a box and take it back to the store, because you're officially too stupid to own a computer." when I dared say that no, I did update all drivers and defragged, and it still doesn't work. (After a brainless drone gave me that "the game is perfect, it's your system that's set up wrong" speech.)

      It's got so low that at least one game I've bought ("Victoria" from Paradox Entertainment, German version) just threw a script syntax error right on startup. Not a crash to desktop, not a sound lockup, nothing even remotely blamable on my computer or drivers. A script syntax error. A game which couldn't have possibly worked on _any_ hardware and/or driver configuration. Noone had even _started_ that game before packing it on a CD and selling it.

      The publisher pointed its finger at the devs, the devs pointed fingers at the publisher, and none of them felt responsible at all for it.

      And as usual, the regular fanboy squad was nevertheless preaching about how ungrateful and petty we are to be complaining about bugs, or about the utterly non-fun gameplay. (The patch which fixes the script error, also changes the game so the first about 50 out of 80 years in the game you have to just wait, because you simply can't buy any resources to build something. Anything. They just don't exist on the world market.) And, quite literally, how grateful we should all be that Paradox, in its infinite benevolence, has bestowed such a great game upon us.

      Yes, quite literally, there were some posts which sounded like they were originally written for a religious scripture.

      But either way: we live in a screwed up world. A world where "normality" means selling something untested and unfinished.

      And in such a world, I don't know, Blizzard gets a lot of respect from me for still sticking to the old fashioned idea of selling finished and tested stuff.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    10. Re:Oh, please... by ToPAz3in6 · · Score: 1

      I agree... Main big point here is Blizzard's games are still supported.

      Blizzard could eventually go for a "Real Myst" type full 3D remake of these games, 100% compatable with the old version for network play, just update the graphics/gameplay details... and continue to fuel the same line of games.

      New players join, old players with new computers upgrade, and old players dont get left out in the cold. Everybody wins.

      --
      Just drop acid, already, and invent something better... or quit your whining.
    11. Re:Oh, please... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      There's simply no way that Blizzard could let them do key checking without sacrificing security.

      Do it like Kerberos: Client sends CD Key to blizzard server. Blizzard server sends client a session key. Client connects to bnetd server, sends session key. bnetd server asks blizzard server if session key is valid.

      CD Keys are kept confidential, and invalid cd keys are not allowed on the participating bnetd server.

      And even if they did, new servers would be constantly springing up that just had is disabled! (Open source...yaaay...)

      The RIAA can tell you the solution to that problem: Subpoena the people running the servers, determine the identity of the players on it (and the validity of their CD keys), and if appropriate sue the players for copyright infringement.

      People are quick to say that what they did was wrong, but they're never able to say exactly what would have been right.

      This is what would be right: punishing people who are performing illegal activities, and not punishing people who are not peroforming illegal activities.

    12. Re:Oh, please... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Can you name one bad game that Blizzard has made?

      I can't say that it's buggy or anything, but there's a game called "Blackstone" or "Blackthorn" that isn't really that great. It's a platform based shooter, but it isn't nearly as fun as the original Duke Nukem, or The Gods.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  46. Thank you, amateur game designer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the number of MMORPGs you've designed and launched would be?

  47. Here's an idea . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you were a smart virus author, you'd title the email it contained "World of Warcraft Beta Application Accepted."

  48. Dadgumit! by Trikenstein · · Score: 1
    I completly missed the WoW beta signup.
    Don't recall it being posted anywhere.
    Can't find a link to signup anywhere

    Anyone got a link for a signup page?

    1. Re:Dadgumit! by Jerdie · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, the signup ended a couple weeks ago at least.

      --
      Programming is simply the application of logic to creativity
    2. Re:Dadgumit! by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Too late. And it was on /., you just didn't notice, I guess. End of January, I think.

      There will be an open beta later.

    3. Re:Dadgumit! by Trikenstein · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the replies.
      That was a period I was pretty much offline and guess I missed it...
      Oh well, guess Im waiting for the open beta =\

  49. No more NDA by truffle · · Score: 1


    I've been Alpha testing this game for four months, now that the beta is out my NDA is lifted.

    I suppose I should say something meaningful now, but all I can think to really say is that if you like fantasy RPGs, and questing, it's definitely worth giving it a try.

    I've been having a lot of fun, and after four months, I'm still excited about playing.

    --

    ---
    I support spreading santorum
  50. Two words by g0dfath3r · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zug Zug

    1. Re:Two words by genner · · Score: 1

      Da Boo.

  51. Screw Bnetd by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It allowed you to play the game without paying for a copy.

    This may be ok for a game that's been out for years, but bnetd had warcraft3 before it was in stores!

    1. Re:Screw Bnetd by Queuetue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may want to learn a little more about this before you talk about it - you're hurting people that don't deserve it.

      First, Bnetd never had wc3 support - before or after the beta release. You're thinking of a different project.

      Second, Warforge, the server project that did provide wc3 support, wasn't doing anything wrong.

      Third, Blizzard's beef should have been with the crews that cracked the protection built into wc3, thier beta testers who illegaly distributed copies, and their own developers that built a system that was cracked so easily.

      None of this, that or the other had anything to do with bnetd, except that Blizzard sicced the DMCA on them.

    2. Re:Screw Bnetd by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Third, Blizzard's beef should have been with the crews that cracked the protection built into wc3, thier beta testers who illegaly distributed copies, and their own developers that built a system that was cracked so easily.

      That's like saying that it's the rape victim's fault for dressing a certain way, or an assault victim's fault for not carrying a weapon.

    3. Re:Screw Bnetd by Queuetue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't accredit fault - I indicated where it would be proper to apply pressure to fix a situation, and I think I did it in the right order of importance.

      Yes, arming the citizenry would provide a deterrence to assault. Yes, dressing less attractively will reduce your chances of rape. Both of these carry personal and societal costs that may or may not outweigh the value of the solution in question.

      It has nothing to do with fault, but with reality. The fault in this situation is obviously in the hands of those that did illegal acts. The best prevention in this situation would have probably been better technical protection.

      And, still, none of this has anything to do with Bnetd, except that Blizzard used the DMCA to kill the project.

  52. WOW beta testers by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    The term "Lucky Bastards" comes to mind :-)

  53. An alternative to both of them by yomahz · · Score: 2, Informative

    FFXI (Final Fantasy X1) is a wonderful MMORPG. I picked up FFXI to pass the time until WoW came out. Now that I've been playing it for almost 6 months now, I gotta tell ya... I don't see myself switching unless WoW is absolutely amazing.

    As an old EQ player, I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air FFXI has been.

    The UI is a bit odd at first but once you get use to it, it's more than functional... it's actually nice. Just takes some adjustments.

    Here's more:

    http://www.playonline.com/ff11us/gameplay/
    http ://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?cat=16
    http://f fo.warcry.com/

    --
    "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
  54. No PVP by Sheepdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They aren't going to even have a PVP server?

    How exactly do they expect to get the DAOC players, the AC Darktide players, the original UO PVPers, etc., who feel that it is more important to have something to do other than play a stupid single player game with IRC?

    1. Re:No PVP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who says they expected those players?

      Single player? Are you mentaly unstable that you cant cooperate with people?

      You are just yet another example of a pk ganker. You are not wanted in WoW.

    2. Re:No PVP by Reapy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you feel that every mmorpg game out there has to cater to everyones style of play? Theres a bunch of games out there, pick one that fits your style of play and stay there. If ac darktide players like that style of play so much then they can continue playing ac darktide.

      I swear people are so stupid. If you like pvp your a ganker, if you like pve your a carebare. I like both, wtf am I, a ganking carebare? If you do solo a lot, you do it in a way you wan to experience their world and their content and the day to day original experiences you encounter with other people in the world.

      I mean, I remember one day in daoc seeing some guy paying newbies cash to jump off the balcony in camelot until they died. Or some guy in eq who turned into a tree and was talking to people as they walked by. In shadowbane some stealing from the group he just left. You can't recreate that in single player.

      Single player is for being awesome and destroying everyone and everything and severly altering the world through your actions. Online play is for exploring and experiencing people and dynamic events.

      But a multiplayer dungeon crawl with 4 other buddies as you work your way through hoards of monsters together can be just as fun and rewarding and have that same sense of danger a fully pvp game gives you.

      I guess it comes down to somedays you want that heart pounding action that a complete pvp game will give you, and somedays you just want to chill and bash monsters.

      WoW is supposed to have limited pvp anyway, so with any luck they'll implement a full pvp area for you or something.

  55. Nothing new to see here? by Teh+Suq · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The quests vary from killing a number of a specific monster, to exploring an area, and to collecting a number of specific drops. There are also some more interesting quests, such as protecting an npc while he walks from one place to another and gets ambushed by some bad guys, or others where you have a limited time (complete with a timer on screen) to kill a few things.

    Is that it? They can't be more creative than that? You just described the quest system in every MMORPG that exists for the most part. Heck, even Asheron's Call 2 (which most consider a failure) has all those quest types in game. Please tell me something that is different about this game!

    1. Re:Nothing new to see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhapse you should make a suggestion.
      I'm sure if you actually have a good idea some one will see fit to give it a shot.

  56. I'm going to regret asking this... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    But I'm curious.

    Freedom of speech is a right.

    Freedom of religion is a right.

    Where exactly in the Constitution (or elsewhere) was "Freedom to play Starcraft without buying it" a right?

    For the record, I also think Blizzard's business plan (via battle.net) was not only not a bad one but a good and even fairly visionary one for its time.

    1. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      The problem is, let's say I bought the game. Then, through reverse engineering, I figure out the game protocol and build a server that I can connect to on my own.

      Note that I'm not even altering the original game. I'm not offering my new server for sale, infringing on a copyright in that regard. I'm working on only something I purchased, that is in my grubby little hands.

      How is it any of Blizzard's business, what I've stated above? What "right" do they have to legally push me around?

    2. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      The United States was founded on a document called the Declaration of Independance, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson. That document starts with a list of inalienable rights - IE, ones that may not be taken away from any person in a just world.

      By the right to liberty, he intended for every person to have the right to think and speak freely as well as to hold any opinion and persue any endeavor without fear of persecution. The pursuit of happiness was the intention for every citizen to have a right to find purpose in thier lives, and seek personal joy. These intentions are the basis of the American government.

      The U.S. Constitution provides a list of explicit rights, intended to support the notions set forth in the Declaration. Also, the Supreme Court has found in many situations that American citizens have innumerabe implicit rights, stemming from both the intent of the law (the Declaration of Independance) and inherent in the mechanisms in the explicit rights of the Constitution.

      I have a RIGHT to freedom, implicitly states and explicity defined - including the freedom to make software, provided it does not violate the laws of copyright or have no purpose beyond illegal ones.

      Yes, the U.S. has strayed far from it's roots. And it's happened because people were willing to give money to the people who were breaking the system. By standing up for the rights, no matter how insignificant, of a small software development group, you can help stem the tide of corruption that has taken over our government, and help bring the concept of the corporation back to what it was intended to do - a tool to serve the public, not a weapon to use against their rights.

      Does that help?

    3. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't what bnetd did, nor is it an answer to the parent's question. After all, he was asking what made people think they could play a game without paying for it. What does your example have to do with that?

    4. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very eloquent. Now why don't you answer the question? How do any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights or interpreted by the courts give you the right to play Starcraft without paying for it? Or maybe you'd rather continue keeping the world safe from straw men?

    5. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      What does playing Starcraft without paying for it have to do with this? Once again, Bnetd was a tool that let people play games - legal or illegal had nothing to do with it, that was a personal decision made by the player. Bnetd is agnostic when it comes to Blizzard's business model.

      Blizzard should have gone after the people trafficking in copyright violations, not the people who were just building a game server.

    6. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does playing Starcraft without paying for it have to do with this

      It was the question posed in this post you replied to. I don't know where your answer came from, but it didn't address his question. It looked like you fell out of a different conversation or something. Why don't you ask him what it has to do with this?

    7. Re:I'm going to regret asking this... by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      OK, I was addressing the rights that allow free people to undertake endeavors, namely those of building a tool for fun.

      Nothing, as far as I know, gives anyone the right to play a game in violation of cpyright. This still has nothing to do with the conversation, other than in a few confused minds, including the original poster of this application and Blizzard/Vivendi's lawyers.

      As you pointed out, I probably shouldn't have bothered responding, since I answered the wrong question, about the rights of the individual to make bnetd, not the rights of the individual to violate copyright, which I don't agree with.

      It's a shame because I spent quite a while on it.

  57. SWG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While i do wonder how this game turns out, i must say i dont care, i like my SWG.

    Sure it has issues, but they are doing a good job on addressing many of them. If they get it right over the next few months, WOW will have to be something really amazing for me to move over.

  58. reasons for playing on Bnet.d by pwarf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I never played on Bnet.d, I have to disagree with you about there being no other reason to play on it. Blizzard servers may not be strained now, but when I was playing Diablo II lag was sometimes a real problem, especially for playing hard-core (once you're dead, your character is dead).

    As previously mentioned, there are plenty of reasons other than not owning the game to want to play on non-Blizzard servers. A chance for reduced lag is one. Having different standards of acceptable behavior is another. Also, having a smaller pool of players makes meeting people online more likely. Moreover, if this is hosted for a local ISP, you are more likely to meet people in your area.

    The comparison of BNet.d writers/users with virus writers is unfounded; a better comparison would be with the writers/users of no-CD hacks or software. Some people may use them for pirating, but many others use them for convenience. Given current hard drive sizes, there is no reason to require a CD or even DVD to be in the drive to play a game or use software. It adds only slightly to the security against pirating, and removing it is a convenience to the end user. (Requiring the CD be in the drive, but providing no copy protection on the CD, which I've often seen, is silly; real pirates will just copy the CD and the rest of your users will be inconvenienced.)

    Another major thing you've missed about "improving the game experience" is that Blizzard was changing the balancing with each patch, which made a few of my friend's characters impotent (excessive concentration in skills that were nerfed with a patch). I don't know whether each patch was reverse engineered or not, but I assume that each server running Bnet.d had the choice of whether to implement a new patch.

    Also, from the ISP's point of view, every player they could get on local Bnet.d servers was less external bandwidth they had to pay for. I don't think Diablo II was that bandwidth intensive, but it probably didn't hurt.

  59. Alpha tester's report by pcx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a link to an alpha tester's report. It's a VERY long read but it's also a really, really GREAT read. If you're interested at all in what WoW is and isn't as it starts beta, this is must read material.

    http://www.graffe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552 6

  60. Complaints about RTS games in general by gaijin99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well, I don't think I'd say WC3 was terrible, but it was fairly lackluster. The 3d aspect was incredibly poorly implemented, whoever decided to make a 3d game and not implement any real 3d controls was definately not thinking (for the "WC3 is the best game ever crowd": I know you can bring the camera closer to the ground. However, *real* 3d games include the amazing ability to rotate the camera to different angles, zoom, etc.)

    The "heros" aspect was newish, but I think it detracted from the game, really. If I want to play an RPG I'll play an RPG.

    What bothers me is that after all these years of RTS games they still don't have the improvements I was looking for after playing my first. Specifically, ways to avoid micromanagement. I want

    • User definable attack priority lists. I want to be able to tell each unit, or unit type, or group what priority to assign to which enemy types.
    • User alterable aggression levels.
    • The ability to set the level at which my damaged units will retreat and get healing.
    • User definable "response zones" so that I can establish a rapid reaction force and order it to aid any attacked unit inside its response zone, or to ignore attacks in certain areas.
    • The ability to order units with special attacks to bloody use the damn attacks so I don't have to fricking micromanage each damn unit's special attack. WC3 at least gave you the ability to set *some* specials to work automatically, but it wasn't very specific. I'd like to be able to order my special units to use X amount of their mana/energy/whatever for defense, Y for offense, and Z for support. Again, on either an individual basis, a unit type basis, or a group basis.
    None of this requires true AI, none of this is impossible for today's programmers. Some of what I want existed in the game Dark Reign (aggression levels, for example). Why has the actual mechanic of playing RTS games been left unimproved since day one? If I want a game where I have to be twitchy I'll play an FPS game. I don't want to micromanage anything. That isn't strategy.

    I figure that its much more important in a *strategy* game to set proper "standing orders" than it is to individually tell each and every grunt specifically what to attack. The commander should be thinking about the big picture, where to expand, what unit mix to use, the broad strokes of the attack, where to put forward staging areas, where to place support units (repair bays, etc), not focusing on individual units.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    1. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Interesting list of features.
      So what do you do when you've set all that up ? Sit back and watch ?

      Don't get me wrong, they sound useful, but a lot of the 'challenge' of these games is how quickly you can react to control vast numbers of units at a time. If you can just set up your parameters ahead of time, you could potentially just be sitting back watching the game for most of it, rather than actually playing it...

      (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

    2. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by gaijin99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There's pleanty to do that isn't micromanagement. Its called "strategy". We don't really have Real Time Strategy games, we have Real Time Micromanagement games. If my units are behaving according to my standing orders than I can spend my time doing the more significant micromanagement. Setting up tactics, executing flank attacks, etc.

      Frankly, due to the micromanagement of vast hoards approach we see virtually no strategy in RTS games. When was the last time you saw a well executed flanking maneuver? Or lead your opponent into an ambush (in StarCraft there isn't even a "hold your fire" command, anytime there's an enemy unit in range your units attack, no possibilities for subtelty there...) People are so busy with the nonesense that actual tactics and strategy are almost completely gone.

      As I said in my original post, a commander should be working on proper unit mix for the situation, planning tactics and strategy, building expansions, etc. I'll freely admit that it would remove some of the challenge of fighting the computer, but the real challenge has always been found fighting other humans online. I'd much rather match my tactical and strategic skills than match my ability to click a lot. General Colin Powel, General Tommy Franks, etc don't spend time telling individual soldiers what to do, but they're hardly just sitting back and watching either.

      At the very least I'd like to see those things as options, that way if you want to see who is the best at controling vast numbers of units you can set up an online game that doesn't allow those options, and people like me can play the other way. It may be that you are correct and a game with those options would be boring (I don't think so, but I'll admit the possibility), but I'd like to see a game set up that way so we can actually give it a try instead of sitting around debating weather it might be boring to try something different.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    3. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by Colazar · · Score: 1

      Hear Hear! I hate the twitch aspect of RTS games, which usually pushes me towards turn-based. Ironically, my favorite RTS is Myth2. You do have to micro-manage your troops, but since there isn't any resource-gathering/building going on simultaneously, it's actually manageable to do that.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    4. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by mikelu · · Score: 1

      Just a few points:
      1. There is a "hold your fire" command in Starcraft; you have to continually hit the "stop" command.

      2. Flanking manuevers, ambushes, etc. were all very prevalent in Starcraft. For example, an effective ranged attack unit killing manuever is to use a few units to lure the enemy into a line, and then attack the line from the top or the bottom with melee units.

      Real Time Strategy games do have strategy...they just require a certain level of skill in micromanagement before the strategies begin to surface. Novice level games tend to consist mostly of people throwing units against each other...mid-high level games are a different matter.

    5. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      1. There is a "hold your fire" command in Starcraft; you have to continually hit the "stop" command.
      No, that's continually hitting a button. A "hold your fire command" would not require me to do nothing but keep hitting a button, it would be a command, like the "attack" command. Don't misunderstand, I like StarCraft, its a fun game. But my liking of it doesn't blind me to its flaws. Everything has flaws and by analyzing those flaws we can make the future versions better. I really do want to see StarCraft 2, and I sincerely hope that the good people at Blizzard make serious improvements over what we've seen in WC3 when they make it.

      I think my points are valid, it is true that some very twitchy people are able to both micromanage and try some simple tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't have to twitch so much. I'm sure that there are people out there who can get some combat use out of the High Templar's Psychic Storm attack (to keep using SC as our example here), but most can't because of the purely insane way you have to use that attack. The point is that micromanagement twitch gets in the way of tactical thinking and strategy. It won't be possible to completely eleminate micromanagement for a long time, but we can use several simple techniques to reduce it. Then we can see some real strategy in our RTSes.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    6. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by frekio · · Score: 1

      As you said, none of this requires true AI, and could have been implemented long ago. Online RTS games (unfortunately for you) require good micromanagement skills, becuase that is simply part of the game. Micromanagement skills seperates the good players from the mediocre. RTS games frankly just are not expansive or large enough to be competitive purely by strategy. There are only so many different strategies that you can use, so micromanagement is another aspect that keeps it interesting. RTS Developers (such as Blizzard) do not take out the micromanagement aspect of the game on purpose. This is bad for people who do not play the game much and want to be masters at it, and people who are not excellent at controlling their computers, but that is just aspect of competition.

      Anyways, the point of WC3 and blizzard games is FUN. Not graphics, not story, not sound (although all of these are quite excellent in blizzard games IMHO), but FUN. Lasting fun requires that it remain a challenge for people, even after they have played it for a long time.

      I frankly do not understand why these posts ragging on WC3 always get highly moderated. I don't ever see very good points, only stuff written by people who obviously did not give the game much of a chance.

    7. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what you want is a robot-programming game. They have existed for many years, but are unlikely to ever become generally popular. (Indeed, popularity would only lead to a script-kiddie effect, where most players download programs instead of writing their own)

      Its called "strategy". We don't really have Real Time Strategy games, we have Real Time Micromanagement games.

      Such a thing as a "Stragety Game" is by definition impossible.

      There can no more be a "strategy game" than there can be a "shooting game". That is, you can make a game which appears to have strategy, but it'll only be fake. The window-dressing of strategy, not the reality (in the same way that Quake doesn't really involve firearms, but only appears to on a superficial level)

      This isn't to say that no game can involve strategy... but games in the fields of sports, FPS, and PVP RPG all can have strategy to the same extent an RTS does.

      The words "strategy" and "tactics" are difficult to clearly dilineate, but the true effective difference between them is that tactics are things you can practice, and strategy is not. Any strategic decision, rehearsed enough times, becomes a tactical one.

      General Colin Powel, General Tommy Franks, etc don't spend time telling individual soldiers what to do, but they're hardly just sitting back and watching either.

      Guys like that have only two valuable (relevant) skills. One is leadership- the ability to be trusted by their men. The other is strategy- the ability to evaluate different outcomes. The whole point of true strategic thinking is that in real life, there are no clearly defined "victory conditions". Re the original Gulf War, there was never a doubt that the US could win. In question was what kind of victory would be most useful- how many friendly and civilian deaths were acceptable, what style of fighting would reflect well or poorly, and how much to keep pushing Saddam before the cost outweighs the benefit.

      None of those questions can translate to a videogame environment. Games are necessarily played repeatedly. In 10-20 replays, both sides would learn exactly where the best equilibrium is... which outcome has the highest product of best result and most likelihood. Then once the "optimal plan" is known, the only question is how closely any particular player can execute that plan. (The better mouse-clicker)

    8. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by way2slo · · Score: 1

      Warlords Battlecry II does some of this. You can choose unit AI's to modify how they act. You can also download custom AI's beyond the base set that comes with the game. It's my opinion that WC3 should have been more like this game.

    9. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymous because I have already moderated in this story.

      Not that this covers any of your other points, but I am almost certain if you select a fighting unit (for example, a Terran Marine), and tell it to follow another unit (for example a Terran Medic), the Marine will not fire on available enemies.

      If true (and as I said,I'm almost certain that it is), this is an effective hold fire mechanism.

    10. Re:Complaints about RTS games in general by Ceyan · · Score: 1

      You should try the Battlefront Combat Mission games. While more a tactical game set because you can't build up troops, you're stuck with what you got, they have A LOT more functionality than the basic RTS. Still requires a significant amount of micromanagement as well.

  61. Pirate MMORPG software? impossible. by Hackie_Chan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Companies like MMORPGS because of zero piracy (everybody have connect to a central server to play) and everybody have to pay to play it.

    Oh, and good luck building your own pirated server lol

    --

    What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
    1. Re:Pirate MMORPG software? impossible. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Er, there are already server emulators for Ultima Online at least, and rumored for Dark Age of Camelot as well. Plenty of unofficial UO shards all over the place using emulators.

  62. Wrong, Blizzard servers do more than matchmake by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. Diablo II is played on their servers. Characters are stored on their servers. Warcraft III routes all packets so your IP is not exposed to other players.

    Perhaps you are really describing bnetd?

    1. Re:Wrong, Blizzard servers do more than matchmake by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >Warcraft III routes all packets so your IP is not exposed to other players.

      Probably does some data checking to catch cheaters, etc. too, although I don't know for sure.

    2. Re:Wrong, Blizzard servers do more than matchmake by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know where Diablo II saves. So it's a matchmaker with a file server for your tiny saved file. Big deal. There is a difference between "saved on their servers" and "played on their servers", no? Even just the sheer amount of data processing that a MMOG game must do, is a whole different league from sharing a large-ish hard drive for saved games.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Wrong, Blizzard servers do more than matchmake by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between "saved on their servers" and "played on their servers", no?

      Yes, that is why I wrote that D2 does both. Is there something confusing about: "Diablo II is played on their servers"?

  63. Blizzard's misstep by Linknoid · · Score: 1
    I was a big blizzard fan until they decided to sue FSGS and the makers of bnetd. Their servers are garbage, and most of the players I've met on those servers are idiots, so without a way to play on a private server with just my friends (spread across the country), I refuse to buy any more Blizzard games.


    And I'm not alone. That was Blizzard's misstep.

    1. Re:Blizzard's misstep by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      Hmm? I realise that most of the people are idiots, and I mainly played with my friends only. With private games (ie. enable password) on battle.net, I could do that easily. If there was a problem with battle.net, we normally had muck-around open characters that we played with in a tcp/ip game.

      Blizzard provides adequately for private games. And there servers are fine, considering I have little lag, and I connect to the American Servers from Australia.

      A problem your end, perhaps?

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  64. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was 3:16am and I had no reason to post other then what I've "heard" about it ;) After I went reading more into it I noticed it was wrong but figured I'd just take the abuse then just try to say I was wrong, since no doubt I would have been modded down anyway :) /DaLiNKz

  65. Depends... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    What does the (insert Blizzard's game name here) end user license agreement say you can and can't do? I admit I haven't read mine in a while, but I suspect there's a clause forbidding you from doing the above.

    In our capitalistic system, dollars vote. (How literal that is depends on how cynical you are.) If Blizzard's EULA forbids you from doing something you think you should be able to do, instead buy the product of a company that doesn't. That's your choice.

    The problem I have with this whole argument is that some people seem to think that you can divorce the way Blizzard does business with the products they create, and that's completely not true. They make great, widely popular games with strong player loyalty and community support. These things are true, in part, because of what they've done with battle.net.

    We could debate all day whether the open source movement or even just a less "evil" company could have concieved of and delivered games equal or superior to those Blizzard has produced, but the reality is, they didn't. Blizzard did. Either live with the way they do things, or play a different game. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    1. Re:Depends... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1


      What does the (insert Blizzard's game name here) end user license agreement say you can and can't do? I admit I haven't read mine in a while, but I suspect there's a clause forbidding you from doing the above.

      In our capitalistic system, dollars vote. (How literal that is depends on how cynical you are.) If Blizzard's EULA forbids you from doing something you think you should be able to do, instead buy the product of a company that doesn't. That's your choice.


      You don't have to agree to any EULAs to own a copy of a blizzard game. You can go to a store, hand them your money and they'll hand you a copy of the game with no contracts signed. It is your copy of a copyrighted work, and you're free to do whatever you want with it to the extent of copyright law.

      Blizzard can ask you to enter an agreement after you already own it, but that has no more impact on anything than if you went out and bought a Ford car and a month later Ford sent you a contract in the mail and asked you to sign it. You can sign it, not sign it, eat it, whatever. It is still your car.

  66. The idea for WarCraft 3 by bonch · · Score: 1

    I can tell you exactly why WarCraft 3 came out the way it did.

    Marketing exec: Hey, guys, let's mix two of your biggest sellers: Diablo and Starcraft.

    Devs: We'll get right on it, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea! Diablo * Starcarft = profits of both put together!!

  67. Star Wars Combine by bonch · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it would EVER get finished, the Star Wars Combine is what you've described.

  68. What you want is called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn based strategy. It's a lot more macro based and you don't have to deal with each individual unit within time constraints. Personally it's not my bag of tea but there are also plenty of people that claimed WC3 was already way too automated and that it reduced the strategy and skill level required to play the game.

    1. Re:What you want is called... by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      Turn based strategy. It's a lot more macro based and you don't have to deal with each individual unit within time constraints. Personally it's not my bag of tea but there are also plenty of people that claimed WC3 was already way too automated and that it reduced the strategy and skill level required to play the game.
      I play TBS games as well, and like them. However I think that RTS games are also fun, but would be more fun it you didn't have to be a twitchy micromanager. As for WC3, I'd say they made the bare minimum of acceptable automation, the ability to set newly generated units to a task, the ability to have certain obvious spell effects autofire, etc. Those who want to have to click each unit individually then activate its special abilities are proof that there is such a thing as being too twitchy. They need to play some UT or Quake to get it out of their systems :)

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  69. hm by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I didn't get accepted as a tester?

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  70. Why WoW will be different than other MMORPG. by Valtor · · Score: 1

    Here is a good first impression on the game, from a guy maybe a little too exicited about it, but still a good overwiew IMO of why WoW will be different than other MMORPG. Different as in being _fun_ to play.

    Here it goes:

    "Well I have played for about 5 hours now, starting last night.

    So far , I am a very happy man. About a month ago I played through the KOTOR for the PC, and the game was so good, I just could not bear to play anything else. So I did something that I have not done my whole life. I stopped playing games for about a month.

    Needless to say, I was very happy when I got the magical email last night!

    Now I have had a very mixed experiance with MMORPG's. I have found them tedious, and almost like working.

    I loved SWG for the first 6 months, but the developers absolutely ruined that game. I guess so many people quit, they offered a free 14 day trial to come back a few weeks ago.

    I guess if I can give you game developers at Blizzard some advice it would be this. People will be paying to play this game. SO if they get really annoyed, they will walk away, and propably never come back.

    Listen to the good players, and not the PvP griefers. Listening to the Griefers ruined SWG, which had enormour potential.

    But it seems that you all have started on a much better footing, by making the priest better. The ignorant developers in SWG would have made every other class as week as the Priest instead of making the Priest better. SO GREAT JOB BLIZZARD!!!!

    The interface is just sweet. I did not even have to read the instructions, I just jumped right in and started playing. Another great job!

    It seems that you all have taken the glorious simplicity of Diablo2 and mixed in the best parts of WC3. The game is fast paced and exciting yet it is still a MMORPG. NICE another great job.

    I love the level up system. it is nice that as you use a weapon, shield etc. that you automatically get better. Plus you get to level up, and then train your skills!. The only problem I hae with the trainers, is that they are sometimes hard to find. Maybe would could slap them on the map? or have a town/city map? Other wise, once again NICE!

    I guess what I love most, is that I actually feel like I am in Azeroth. The game has style! SWG drove me nuts, because there was no quests, no loot, and it was mindless killing of space bunnies! I really love how you all have made the game quest driven. And not stupid quests at that. They have a final fantasy (console not the crappy MMORPG) feel to them wich is nice. I feel like I am trying to accomplish something, and not just level up and get more cash. ONCE AGAIN SWEET! You guys are just L33t HAXXORS. :-) Please don't ban me for saying elite hackers....

    The graphics are just beautiful, and the battles are actually.....ARe you ready for this? FUN. Most MMORPG's are like beating your head into the wall. It is a combination of the hack and slash of Diablo 2 and the smoothness of TFT WC3. I love the skill set up, and they seem well thought out. I am a human warrior. (I cannot wait to get Wirl Wind.)

    I do have one question. What kinds of abilites are on the rings? Are there any that are SOJ like? Are there any leech rings?

    Lastly, I just want to thank you all for allowing me the priveledge of being a part of your world, and allowing me to BETA test this game.

    Also my last Suggestion. Please keep the game non-tedious.

    Other than that, so far this BETA is better than any MMORPG that I have played 2 year after release. YOU GUYS AND GALS ROCK.

    Keep up the good work"

    Original link
    http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?F N=wow- general&T=1266&P=1&ReplyCount=7#post12 66

    --
    "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
  71. Re:Honestly by Arngautr · · Score: 1

    Make it a -2, but I whole heartidly agree. ps WoW looks great. I choose to be 'redundant' rather than 'off topic'. :)