Actually you can use the clan commands from D2 but the server warns you that you can't use them. It's simply restricted.
Hence what I said "does not abide by many of the functions available to clan channels".
Communication systems are of course, not separate, far from that.
Actually, they are. Diablo II players cannot use the same communication features of Warcraft, therefor communication is limited from Warcraft, therefor less communication.
While in D2, you can chat with your friends playing D1 and SC or WC3 as if you were all playing the same game.
Whispering or chatting are not the only forms of communication- organization in to clans with online Battle.net functions perpetuates communication and things like getting your scores with Battle.net commands help you to communicate with the server for special information.
That's why it's called battle 'net'. The new 'net' is likely going to be the same system and share the same chat servers. It is just going to have more features. That's what I am saying
Battle.net is a program that accesses the servers for information and connects players. The servers are not Battle.net, they are accessed indirectly by the players through Battle.net's framework.
, not trying to start an argument at all. Maybe a dialogue if that's not a problem but not an argument.
Sorry, most of the content of the aforementioned post seemed, to me, condescending.
There hasn't been any development on D2 since the Pandemonium event was introduced. I severely doubt they will release a patch to facelift D2 interface. If D3 is going to have advanced social functions on the interface, there's a slight chance that they will exist as textual commands in previous games, but seeing how certain WC3 features weren't backward-compatible, I would doubt that.
That's fine, I never said that they were going to make a patch. I said that they could. I said let them if they want. It'll be more fun and convenient for the rest of us. And by Pandemonium event, do you mean Uber Tristram with its build-up quests or Diablo Clone? Diablo Clone was introduced many years back, and Uber Tristram was introduced in 1.11. And since then we actually have had patches, but they were, admittedly, only to fix minor glitches.
And you just mean Diablo II's Battle.net interface, right? Because you can update that without changing its in-game interface. Heck, they don't even need to change the style or anything- they only need to add some buttons, a few backwards-compatible chat commands from Diablo III, and maybe a few hotkeys. I guess it might be more trouble than it sounds, but they've got a multi-billion-dollar budget, so I won't knock that off just on that instance.
Other features will include the armory and obviously a 'looking-for-groop/game' system. Armory consists of a simple database of characters and I don't see any interest in that be implemented for D2.
I don't know, there's thousands of players that are constantly asking "what gear are you wearing" or "can I see your stuff" or "what's your setup". I've seen it countless times in the last few weeks when I was in some duel games.
For a LFG system they would have some serious development to do and revamp the interface and I just don't see them doing it. Not to mention that it would be pointless.
From your opinion, sure. What about the people that still play it for years because their computers can't handle Diablo III? Despite what people may say on these forums (which is mostly populated by heavy gamers, anyway), most people do not have the hardware to handle Diablo III. Most people live with computers that are far out-of-date. To upgrade would cost (for most people) over or nearly a thousand dollars. Yes, I'm well aware that building your own machine costs half that, but most normal people will not have the constitution or know-how to do that.
And finally, WoW has already had that achievment system implemented some time ago. D2 won't ever have that if they haven't implemented it thus far. That's what separates the 'new' battle.net from the 'old' one - these new games are more modern in nature and have their special needs. The achievment system is something that is common to all three of them. It's just that the list of new features that won't be backward-compatible represents a relatively big leap that the whole '2.0' comes from.
They don't need to implement achievements. There isn't any reason to- the game is too short and that would also require patching core game code- which isn't what patches are used for. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But why not voice? Why not clan support? If anything, they would propagate more revenue from a dying game for Blizzard since they announced that some features would require a little extra moola. I don't see an issue with that.
Now that I think of it, the term Battle.net 2.0 is the same as Web 2.0- they're just names we apply to a new generation of concepts, software, interactivity, and code. I'm just confused why you laid it on me like I was some sort of child for using the term.
There is no such thing as Battle.net 2.0, it's just a popular term used on the forums to refer to the new interface and features that we can expect in SC2 and D3 (and WoW, once it becomes a part of that system).
There was never any argument there, don't try to start one. The term is used all over the internet, not just here. I can google it for you if you want.
There is only one Battlenet system, but the new games that get out will provide more advanced features on the client side.
Battle.net for Diablo I, SC, and the like has many differences than Diablo II's Battle.net interface and commands. Just off the top of my head Warcraft offers clan channels. Diablo II's Battle.net does not, only Op channels which do not abide by many of the functions available to clan channels. We don't all use the same Battle.net system. Our information is stored on the same servers in most cases, but the communication system- which is what Battle.net is- is different from game to game.
What would you have them do, create patches for SC, Diablo, D2 and WC3?
Sure, why not? They have in the past for all sorts of things. Sorry, right now you're coming off as just trying to start some sort of argument where there wasn't one before. Battlenet 2.0's features, like voicechat, probably won't be able to be translated in to Diablo II's Battle.net. For one, there's no button anywhere for it right now in the interface of Diablo II's Battle.net, so in order for them to have 2.0 on all their games, they'd all need patches, yes. I see no problem with that.
They haven't stated whether previous Battle.net 1.0 games will have an upgrade to Battle.net 2.0- anything anyone says right now is just conjecture. I'd hope they'd upgrade us, though
Hence what I said "does not abide by many of the functions available to clan channels".
Actually, they are. Diablo II players cannot use the same communication features of Warcraft, therefor communication is limited from Warcraft, therefor less communication.
Whispering or chatting are not the only forms of communication- organization in to clans with online Battle.net functions perpetuates communication and things like getting your scores with Battle.net commands help you to communicate with the server for special information.
Battle.net is a program that accesses the servers for information and connects players. The servers are not Battle.net, they are accessed indirectly by the players through Battle.net's framework.
Sorry, most of the content of the aforementioned post seemed, to me, condescending.
That's fine, I never said that they were going to make a patch. I said that they could. I said let them if they want. It'll be more fun and convenient for the rest of us. And by Pandemonium event, do you mean Uber Tristram with its build-up quests or Diablo Clone? Diablo Clone was introduced many years back, and Uber Tristram was introduced in 1.11. And since then we actually have had patches, but they were, admittedly, only to fix minor glitches.
And you just mean Diablo II's Battle.net interface, right? Because you can update that without changing its in-game interface. Heck, they don't even need to change the style or anything- they only need to add some buttons, a few backwards-compatible chat commands from Diablo III, and maybe a few hotkeys. I guess it might be more trouble than it sounds, but they've got a multi-billion-dollar budget, so I won't knock that off just on that instance.
I don't know, there's thousands of players that are constantly asking "what gear are you wearing" or "can I see your stuff" or "what's your setup". I've seen it countless times in the last few weeks when I was in some duel games.
From your opinion, sure. What about the people that still play it for years because their computers can't handle Diablo III? Despite what people may say on these forums (which is mostly populated by heavy gamers, anyway), most people do not have the hardware to handle Diablo III. Most people live with computers that are far out-of-date. To upgrade would cost (for most people) over or nearly a thousand dollars. Yes, I'm well aware that building your own machine costs half that, but most normal people will not have the constitution or know-how to do that.
They don't need to implement achievements. There isn't any reason to- the game is too short and that would also require patching core game code- which isn't what patches are used for. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But why not voice? Why not clan support? If anything, they would propagate more revenue from a dying game for Blizzard since they announced that some features would require a little extra moola. I don't see an issue with that.
Now that I think of it, the term Battle.net 2.0 is the same as Web 2.0- they're just names we apply to a new generation of concepts, software, interactivity, and code. I'm just confused why you laid it on me like I was some sort of child for using the term.
There was never any argument there, don't try to start one. The term is used all over the internet, not just here. I can google it for you if you want.
Battle.net for Diablo I, SC, and the like has many differences than Diablo II's Battle.net interface and commands. Just off the top of my head Warcraft offers clan channels. Diablo II's Battle.net does not, only Op channels which do not abide by many of the functions available to clan channels. We don't all use the same Battle.net system. Our information is stored on the same servers in most cases, but the communication system- which is what Battle.net is- is different from game to game.
Sure, why not? They have in the past for all sorts of things. Sorry, right now you're coming off as just trying to start some sort of argument where there wasn't one before. Battlenet 2.0's features, like voicechat, probably won't be able to be translated in to Diablo II's Battle.net. For one, there's no button anywhere for it right now in the interface of Diablo II's Battle.net, so in order for them to have 2.0 on all their games, they'd all need patches, yes. I see no problem with that.