Jump to content

Talk:Battle.net/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

BNLS merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNLS. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reworking needed

Everything besides History needs to be reworked in my opinion, and people need to stop writing unproven opinions as facts and avoid getting so detailed with useless information--like the "four type of people"--whose idea was this?...

Please review Category:Wikipedia_style_guidelines.

dearly 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice this, but it seems like the Community & External links section of this article is nothing but a large advertisement for Valhalla Legends (vL), the creators of BNLS and all other items listed in those sections. If bots arn't a important topic to seekers of battle.net information, then why would they want to know about the creators and creations of such bot programmers? The section should either be expanded in order to include developers other than Valhalla Legends, or reworded to let people know that vL is not the only group of people making any developments related to battle.net. I doubt anyone reading this article would care to know that 'BNCSUtil.dll' has been ported to .NET, BNCSUtil should have it's own article. And the external links section needs to be edited to include information related to battle.net itself, not BNLS Protocol Specifications and ClanGnome information, more vL crap. Instead, links should be posted to various areas on battle.net's informative website and major community sites that have sprung up around the battle.net community. I'm not trying to take a stab at vL, but this article was clearly written with them in mind and it really gives a skewed view at what battle.net is. Matt 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Matt. I think one or more vL members added stuff to this article, basically promoting themselves. We should also not be advertising clan names in sections such as listing "known warring clans". I believe the Battle.net Community section should be made into a seperate article. I removed the vL external links. Not appropriate for the article, but would possibly be acceptable in a seperate article about the Battle.net community. Duran 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with whoever removed the "four types of people" section--that was highly specific and bias and shouldn't have been in a Wikipedia article. If I recall correctly, Valhalla's Legend had their own article at one point, but majority agreed that it should be merged with Battle.net as they are the lead innovators in Battle.net developement, or something along those lines. I noticed that the Community section has gone into too much detail, specifically with "Imitators" and "Other Similar Products". Those two subsections in particular are way too specific and bias and should probably not even be there, and just have one single subsection per topic in the Community section (BNLS is broken up into two at the moment). Keep it simple and interesting. Also, creating a new article Battle.net_(community) for this is probably a good idea, so we can keep the original Battle.net article respectable.dearly 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt it was intended as an ad (or that anybody from vL had anything to do with it), but I agree that the development section is horribly written. It goes to a level of technical detail that is out of sync with the rest of the article about things that are more or less trivial to Battle.net in general. A more elegant way to deal with it might be to have a short section briefly outlining the usage of third-party clients by Battle.net's users and the reasons for them, and to then link to such a community article (I do think the community contributions should be preserved somewhere). I could clean this up myself, but as a primary source I am not sure it is my place to do so. Zakath 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sure thing, Zakath[vL]. FrozenVoid 06:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

warrers isnt a type of battle.net people, i wouldnt classify a few kids with bots as a type. Instead i would replace that with "Backstabbers" or "BSERS" or "Game wreckers" that last ones a niche name but it still works. They a far more prominant type of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.71.183 (talk • contribs) .

I disagree with the above statement because many clans, gaming and warring alike, brought problems to many clans if not discouraged the members to be apart of the clan. Many clans on battle.net also were "warring clans" and are very well known for "warring". Many people who also use bots that connect to battle.net required a type of filters to protect themselves from flooding and warrers. Also, Moderation bots were created inorder to defend your channel against this warring. I think anyone who was apart of battle.net witnessed warring, making it a large part of the program. FaDeS

Critism?

I do believe Battle.net has faced much 'Critism' and we should add it into the Article. Anker99 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, be WP:Bold, but be sure it's well founded and isn't based on Original Research. McKay 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Is an edit war starting here? IMO, the content that has been repeatively removed and reverted should be either moved or kept, but not removed. AlReece45 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the major concern is Original Research McKay 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If that was the case, then why was there no mention that on the talk page? (BNLS, ClanGnome, ect.) AlReece45 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there was. first time I mentioned itsecond time I mentioned it third time, one you responded to. McKay 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
First, the I believe should not be removed.
The first one you mentioned it was not related the the parts I believe should not be removed, the second mention of it was in a discussion about adding Bots and Warring data to this article (nothing in the article itself). The third one is the first mention I saw of it, yet the content was removed before you posted that, so there was no discussion about that section being Original Research before it was removed. All three instances of where you mentioned Original Research are not related with each other, and only one of the relates to the information I'm discussing.
Finally, since most of that information was merged here from another article (even though it doesn't go with the rest of this article), on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNLS, there was still nothing about that information being Original Research.AlReece45 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, of the three times I mentioned OR, only one pertained to you directly. For the record, I haven't been the one doing the reverting, but I've been watching the article and its reverts for a while. I didn't read what was removed when it got reverted, but the premise remains, the content does appear to original research particluarly because there isn't any citations. Feel free to re-add the content with references, and it has a much greater chance of staying. McKay 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that there are no citations in this article? AlReece45 13:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any. Especially with articles of dubious origins. McKay 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

bnetwiki.org?

Someone added an external link to bnetwiki.org. This, after all, should be kept as a general article about battle.net. If you feel the need to express specifics of battle.net I suppose bnetwiki.org would be a good solution. Anyone else have thoughts? 172.165.173.30 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Matt

Yes, that is the purpose of bnetwiki.org. As you can see simply from reading this Talk page, people tend to get into specific details about Battle.net (such as users, clans, bots), which is highly inappropriate for this Wiki article, which is why a dedicated wiki for Battle.net was introduced. --dearly 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but while bnetwiki might be handy, it is WP:OR and doesn't meet the criteria at WP:RS or WP:NOTABLE. If you have any questions. Feel free to ask. McKay 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:SOAPbox. McKay 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that it concerns me a whole lot, as I added the link there to be helpful, but how is it any more of a violation than the World of Warcraft article linking to a WoW Wiki and fan sites? I'm pretty sure all those links you've given apply to the articles themselves, not external links. I believe a link to a wiki that is dedicated to the specifics of the article itself is quite noteworthy. --dearly 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for all of the content on that page, but I would presume that wowwiki might be notable. It is an approved fansite by blizzard. I personally know that bnetwiki violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS, so it shouldn't be here. Maybe someone should evaluate the links on the WoW page, but that's different. McKay 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok thank you for clarifying --dearly 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

bnetwiki.org enforces many Wikipedia guidelines to ensure that all material is useful, tasteful, informative, and factual. The website itself is dedicated to the topic of this article, and discusses many specifics that would not be reasonable to include in this article. Providing a link to bnetwiki.org is strictly done to provide more information on the topic of Battle.net. It is strictly a not-for-profit resource of useful, tasteful, informative, and factual information. dearly 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As Per WP:EL, I'm removing the link again:
  • Is it accessible to the reader?
    No, the page in it's current state is unusable and unhelpful. This could be changed though.
  • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
    Possibly, it's hard to say
  • Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
    Sure, but "functional" is a bit of a stretch with the current home page.
It meets none of the criteria under "what should be linked" or "links to consider"
under "links to be avoided" it kinda meets 1, does meet 2 (which is why the content was removed from this page in the first place), probably meets 3, Most certainly meets 12, and does meet the next criteria of WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
So, as far as I can tell, we have virtually no reason to include it and a half dozen reasons to exclude it. If anyone thinks I'm being harsh in my judgement, please feel free to comment on where you think I'm making logical errors. McKay 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BNUpdate Icons

Im not sure if anybody noticed, but the BNUpdate icons for Starcraft and Warcraft III were switched between each other - the Starcraft icon was labeled as if being the WC3 and vice-versa. I just edited the page, but the file names, categories and descriptions must be also changed accordingly. Take a look at the B.Net Update page. Leo McAllister 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battlenet logo.png

Image:Battlenet logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Development

Shouldn't there be a section on the development of Battle.net, like who made it and such?

Yeah, if someone wants to add WP:Attributable information about it. McKay 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft Japanese

I have the SC Japanese listed on the article. it isn't a beta though, i run it and it says 1.0--Zappedgiants (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Four Types of People"

Your opinions and attempts to classify the 'types of bnet users' is irrelevant to factual information regarding Battle.net.

Apparently I have to point out the obvious to MoDD for why this doesn't belong in this article.

No, Dearly, As per Wikipedia:Guidelines (more specifically, key policy 4 "Respect other contributors", see also Wikipedia:Civility), you made an uncivil comment, so your change can be reverted, because it was a personal insinuated attack. The fact that you referenced Wikipedia:Guidelines shows that you should be held accountable for the policies contained therein. Please keep your comments civil. McKay 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There are typically four types of people who go on Battle.net;
1) Gamers - The gamers go on to play either Diablo II, StarCraft, Warcraft III, and sometimes Warcraft II. Some gamers join "clans" that allow them to game together or fight against other clans in games.

So basically, "gamers" are people that play the game? Does this really need to be pointed out?

2) Map Makers - These are usually clans of organized people that create maps for the gamers to play on. Map makers are usually associated with Starcraft, but there are a few Warcraft 3 map makers.

Some reference to where you found this information would be nice. Or did you conduct your own survey and found this information?

3) Warrers - The warrers join clans and fight (war) with other clans, but they do it outside of the game. Some warrers use massload bots with join spams to "fill up" a rival clan's channel. Since the channel limit is 40, when they get "full" no more users can join the channel. Other warrers use floods to disable clients and bots of a channel, sometimes even causing them to drop offline.

OK this is the most confusing paragraph I've ever read. Who came up with the word "warrers"? What does it mean to "join clans and fight (war)"? Are they having rap-wars? What is "massload bots" with "join spams" that "fill up" a rival's clan's channel? Are you on crack??

Other warrers use floods to disable clients and bots of a channel? What are floods, what are clients, and what are bots?

See what I'm getting at? This thread is so people can find out information about Battle.net. Reading this section would confuse the hell out of me if I never used Battle.net. And I doubt the majority of Battle.net users know what you're talking about either.

4) Chatters. Chatters go on just to communicate with other Battle.net users. A sub-group of chatters is the role-players. They can typically be found in the channel Town Square, or one of the many standard channels all players enter when connecting to Battle.net.

Yes, this is pretty typical of gaming servers. Doesn't need to be pointed out.

Major reworking needs to be done on this if you plan to put it back into the article.

dearly 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur Dearly, but there might be a place in wikipedia for this information if it isn't original research. I agree with you that it doesn't belong here, especially if it isn't verifiable. McKay 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im a Warrer myself, and some of the things mentioned here are true to the core, but there are other key elements about it that are needed. – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · § LorDYeP : LorDYeP 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Warring was indeed part of battle.net but I doubt we will be able to find verifiable sources to confirm. Bktrey (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Real ID

Hi All,

I recently added a section on the recent Real ID controversy. It is a first pass and more RS should be forthcoming soon as well as additional information. I must however admit that I am personally POV on this issue, although I have tried to keep a NPOV in the additions. I would welcome other editors who can help to show the positive side of this change. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, normally I wouldn't consider youtube to be an RS ... but when you have someone so famous discussing the issues ... perhaps it's OK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiauaGbxipA
Zuchinni one (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to do the indent thing, hope I do it right. Anyways, I'm on the other POV of what I suspect you are, and I find it appropriately neutral. Reading the links though: 1) Didn't understand what the gender article (29?) had to do with the sentence it was attached to. 2) You mention it's the largest player response, but don't link to the forums page that shows 20k+ (and rising) responses. No other articles explicitly state yet it's the largest player response. 3) Not sure a positive is necessarily needed for the controversy section, as it's controversy due to the fact that people disagree with it. The positives are in the article itself when Real ID is first mentioned (I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.209.63 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The gender article was aimed at addressing a major point that was made in forums about women specifically being targeted for harassment in online games. It's apparently a very common thing and many female gamers are quite worried about stalkers or even being "outed" as female because they don't want to deal with the harassment. I'll replace it with a better article soon as there should be more info coming out. Cheers! Zuchinni one (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is an update that was just announced yesterday and hasn't even been implemented a controversy? The only news I've seen on this is an EU blog called "Americans Are Bad At Gaming" where they drop dox on a CM because they can't post on level 1 alts. Honestly, I'd say this whole thing needs to have time to be fleshed out so it can prove if it has any historical merit. WoW players are generally notorious for flying completely off the handle at any change made in the game, so this is really just business as usual. Please, give it a few weeks before really deciding that this has any merit for an encyclopedic article and back it up with vetted secondary sources. 98.235.102.4 (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a peek at how many RS have discussed this already, including the BBC. This is major news within the gaming world. Certainly more information will come in and it will be updated but Blizzard has stated that this is their new policy and it meets the wikipedia requirements for notability and RS sourcing. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A recent change was made to the information release about a Blizzard employee. As noted in comments within the text I specifically did not include links to this information because it is inappropriate for wikipedia to provide links to personal information. I've requested that the editor undo their change and offered to e-mail them links if they doubt the sourcing User_talk:RLE64#False_info_on_Real_Id_controversy. This information release was also covered in several RS. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bashiok released some forum statistics regarding the thread that comments and concerns were directed to, which could perhaps be used in the article. There were just shy of 50,000 posts made by over 13,000 unique accounts (individual subscribers), with a peak of 1,800 posts an hour. Source 66.220.139.239 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Channel warring and bots

I think a section on channel warring and bots should be added because a significantly large segment of Battle.net users participate in channel wars and use bots. As they are an unavoidable part of the Battle.net experience, they should be noted.

Compile what you know here and when there's enough to constitute a new section, some one will come along and edit it into a good paragraph or two.

Kryptknight 18:10, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

significantly large segment of Battle.net users: wrong.Most users play games,some chat,some are clan members(clearly a minority,evident on any game channel).amount of people who actively disrupt chat activities(flood,spam,harrasment,clan warring) is neglicible.Its ignorant to assume that rival clans use members for such exploits.Its usually one expirienced user who controls a bot(s) on multiple accounts to intrude rival clan channel or spam one of public channels. This is comparable to spamming,which is controlled by very few that disrupt chat expirience across all battle.net(this is attributed to commerical(websites organized for companies dedicated to this scale of activity,such as "D2legit" which operates in public Diablo2 channels ) Diablo II item spam,trivia bots(most use same old questions copied years ago), and clan advertisements(some just promote the clan instead of recruiting or any practical reason)) frequently utilizing dozens of open proxies(or shell accounts that run their bots/scripts).

FrozenVoid 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont know how relevant any of this is, or if all of my facts are correct. This is entirely based on my own recolection...

Originally in all "Private" channels (that is: all channels not specifically designated public by blizzard) users were given ops (Operators status, giving them the ability to kick/ban others from the channel) based on their cronological order (unless a designated heir were chosen by the current op using the "/designate" command). Ops moved on to the next person whenever a op left the channel.

This is what spawned the need for Ops Bots, Allowing users to keep ops for long periods of time, while retaining the ability to ban others from the channel. This then started the rivalry for securing top spot, and taking over popular channels, etc. The most popular ops bot of the time was Ultimate Bot (http://www.ultimatebot.com/). After the Ultimate Bot project was halted and eventually fell behind all of the Battle.net patches, a number of other ops bots sprung up. The current favorite ops bot is Stealth Bot (http://www.stealthbot.net).

In addition to Ops bots mass loading bots sprung up like the popular zDs bot. This allowed people to load a large mass of bots. At some point Battle.net was exploited somehow allowing multiple bots to load up on a single cd key. That didnt last too long and as it is now you can only load 1 bot per cd key and sustain 8 connections per ip (or proxy). This encouraged people to collect CD-Keys and Proxies to load up all these bots. There have been a good number of scam programs out (especially bots) that would report any cd keys you gave it to the creator of the bot. Besides that alot of people used trojan horses to steal keys from other gamers. People trade cd keys as well.

At some point Clan channels were introduced. This allowed users to join the channel "Clan [USERNAME]", giving that username automatic ops upon entering the channel. This also allowed for up to 2 operators since the auto-oped username could use "/designate [USERNAME]" to designate a heir then rejoin the channel giving that username ops and since the clan originator gets auto ops both ops remain. This is important since once a account is given ops there is no way of booting it from ops unless you have direct access to it. This allowed for rival clans to trick someone into giving a spy access to an ops bot allowing the rival clan to put one of their bots in ops and just ban all of its members.

Shortly after the introduction of Warcraft 3 Clan Channels became "Op" Channels where instead of the traditional "Clan [USERNAME]", you could go to "Op [USERNAME]" to acheive the same effect. Clan channels became a more complicated system where you are required to have at least 10 Warcaft3 persons/bots (each its own cd-key) to create a clan channel. The initial clan creater becomes the Chieftan of the clan and can assign some 20 or so clan members the rank of Shaman which makes them auto-oped in the channel.

To this day it is not uncommon to come acrossed a clan "load" where some person will load a giant bundle of bots (somtimes in exess of 500 bots -- each being its own valid cd-key), though it has now become a frivallous display of a persons coolness.

There are also brute forcing bots that will try to crack a persons password at a rapid rate by just trying out passwords in a given sequence. These have been pretty much put out of commission since the introduction of the email recovery system that blizzard just recently put in its games.

Lastly there are the win bots common on Starcraft that rule the starcraft ladder with wins/losses that are completely unreasonable. Though ive never found use for a win bot, its basically used again for coolness, in that they generally take a good deal of resources in regards to keys/proxies/time. Nobody takes the starcraft ladder seriously anymore.

According to popular belief the USWest server is where most of the warring clans reside(d), and USEast is more about gaming and map making.

^.^ That'll be it for me.

Shixish 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea for a section. I've known and used battle.net since it launced and tried to clan and bot thing. Someone who knows about the history of the famous things on battle.net. How battle.net created its own culture with celebrities and all. Like famous clans, VL, KoG, W@R, etc. And famous people like Denial, Skywing, Chewbacca, as well as bots, like ChewBot, etc, floodbotting.
A lot of people know these things but don't put them a place for others to learn. Famous histories of W@R and the story of famous people who they really are. --67.54.206.221 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Um this is coming from a Warrer who did this day to day, and to tell you the truth, you guys went way off topic here. For starters, Warring didnt start with the introduction of Clan channels, it only fueled the fire. Warring has been going on since 1998 on Battle.Net, Only Recently in 2000-Present has it started to become more popular.

Warring is basically this. You scan for proxies, using a Proxy Scanner, such as Tiny Elite Scanner (TLS) or PFinder. What you do then is put in a Proxy RANGE. Example: 201.1.0.0- 202.0.0.0 Port:1080. Than you Start the scan at say 200 Socks. and of Course, a Test Server,Site. Ive used Battle.Net Servers as Test sites. Because when you War, you need about 250-800 Proxies for a REALLY Good Load. This is because, One IP Can Support 8 CD-Keys or however you want to Word it, on Battle.Net, before you are IP Banned. And whoever said more than 500? Try more than 4000. I always loaded more than 800 every tme I loaded. But for those who know what I Speak of, it can get ugly Fast. Not the Clan Situations, but the Consequences of Warring. Warring can cause you to lose your Client Key for the Games you Actually play on Battle.Net, The Voiding of Your Massloading//Flooding Keys, and the Banning of your Username Accounts. And a Final Warning in an attempt by Battle.Net, is to IP Ban your IP Address for a Long Time.

ALSO *WARNING* For those Attempting to load DO NOT load During Weekdays until 10:30-11pm Monday-Friday (EST is the time) Weekends are the times to load because Battle.Net Representatives are Offline than, however a Idle Rep might be in the channel your trying to load or flood. to determine this, if the channel is filled @ 39 or less, theres a rep, if it fills @ 40 than its good to go. Happy Hunting.

Now, for those who are curious as to Defend a Load, its Simple...There are a few Moderation Bots aka Ops, to use. I would Go with Neglected Fury, made by Fleet- or l2uthless Ops made by l2k-Shadow...

With these Bots, they have the Commands such as Loadban, Floodban, Autoload, etc. What they do, is ban any bot coming in too fast after a ban, or infact even a user coming in at the wrong time.

An Easier way to End it, Clan Channels only...Is to Clan Private. this means to basically block access to the channel accept for Clan Members only (The members in the War3 Clan). But This is Considered to be Weak..

And For those of you knowing who I am, I am YeP@USEast, aka Apostasy@USEast and Deathstar@USWest. I am one of the Great Warrers of USEast, only 2-3 People can say they are better than me.

I Always Loaded with 600+ Keys and around 300-1k Proxies. Im the Former Secretary of War for Clan vN Former Secretary of War for Clan HunT Former Leader of Clan PwN Former Leader of Clan WaR Former General of Clan EgN Former Member of Clan aC Former Squad Commander of Clan RH

LorDYeP 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you plan on making a page on warring, I would like to help develope it and give what information I have on the history of it as well as many screenshots to show people what it was about.I myself was a large warrer on battle.net and have developed a reputation for warring. I have a well known face on battle.net as FaDeS@USeast FaDeS@USWest, please contact me at FaDeSRH@Yahoo.com and keep me updated with the current situation of this artcile. FaDeS

FaDeS is right, he is one of the great ones, infact he was the Very Leader of whom I served, when I was Secretary of WaR of Clan HunT, me and him have a long history...Glad to see your still around FaDeS, Bro. ;)– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § LorD YeP LorDYeP 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this content being in wikipedia, but I am opposed to it as long as it remains Original Research, which I think this is destined to remain. McKay 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Clans have been warring since 1996 actually.--4.244.42.10 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If warring is still going on, that's sad. I realize this was made in 06, but really if you're caring to update this or even care about it anymore, fades... yep... w/e your name was... that's just pathetic. By the way, what is this a shrine to fades? Seriously, "whom I served" ... wtf were you a dog? Oh and by the way, you were never ever a General of EGN, maybe you were with a re-born version of EGN, but... never a general. Bugsy, Invited and myself (NoS[X], SuperX) made EGN. By the way, lots of people were better than you, not just 2-3. Lower the ego buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.56.16 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Response is late, but hey. I Know who made EgN...Me and InViTeD were good friends, and I was with a re-born version, with him and BuGsy. And, there wasnt too many better than me back in the day, but now a days Warring is a thing of the past. just figured Id atleast tell you about that though with EgN. Im not ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.186.148 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Change that, dunno why I even bothered putting that down, now I look like I have no life.... perfect... ugh. Anyway, bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.56.16 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle.net Balance

I know this is a relatively new feature, but since it seems it's here to stay and will most likely play a huge role in D3's economy, where should the new Battle.net Balance should be mentioned? Kegofham (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm

StarCraft section should be updated with the new battle.net features available in Heart of the Swarm. Will probably get to this eventually, but happy for any help! Aron Ambrosiani 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Channel warring and bots

Not only are you using several peacock terms and weasel words, you are also using a lot of slang. You can't say things like "most popular ops" or "favorite ops bot." Please read the Wikipedia style guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_style_guidelines

It looks like you described the entire history of Battle.net up to the present, but it's all about how people hacked the server? Battle.net is a gaming network--that's what this article is supposed to be about. Why are you going into such major detail about "bots," "ops," "mass loading," etc.? How many people seeking information on Battle.net would really care about this as it has absolutely no relevance to the purpose of Battle.net...

It looks like you put A LOT of time into researching and documenting this, but what you written in several paragraphs should be summed up into one and put into some "Battle.net hackers" category.

dearly 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

These activities of hackers (regardles of significance) are present on any chat service.This should be moved to Battle.net_hacking FrozenVoid 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Warring is not even hacking. Hacking would be going into the game and using a map hack, stack hack or something else. Warring occurs when people are in chat and not in a game. 66.169.201.88 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that bots, warring, and hacks are as big a part of Battle.net as is its original intention. I feel that the full history of Battle.net should be preserved. I believe all of these things contributed to its overall success and cult-like following. When you say "How many people seeking information on Battle.net would really care about this as it has absolutely no relevance to the purpose of Battle.net" i think you are very wrong. It seems ignorant to me that you should assume that people do/will not care about the full history/evolution of such an influential medium. Eventhough Battle.nets original purpose was not to harbor actions such as botting, warring, etc, i believe it played an important part in the evolution of the internet. I will agree that much of this information may be inapporopriate for the "Battle.net" thread itself, however, it may occupy a thread of its own as FrozenVoid and yourself have suggested. I'm not sure that there should nessisarilly be a section on "Battle.net Hacking" as much as Battle.net Community, bots and waring were all products of the social environment. My article above was meant to simply get the ball rolling. I do not presume to know all there is to know on the subject, i merely meant to provide a framework. On a side note, i feel that the term "ops" was fairly clearly defined in my article, eventhough it is irrelevant because i never meant for my article to be generally published in the first place. Shixish 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the full history of Battle.net needs to be preserved, but wikipedia is not the place for original research WP:NOT. If this history is published elsewhere, and the information is verifiable, then we can include it here. McKay 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that bots, warring, and hacks are a major influence on battle.net, its community, and its changes. Though when looking at this article, I must admit that most of the information after "Usage" seems to be out of place. The section looks like it either needs to be reworked or moved to another article entirely. AlReece45 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that bots are HUGE part of the battle.net community, and those who say any different probably have never spent any time playing a battle.net game. Most battle.net users end up joining "clans", and it is extremely rare to come across a clan channel that is NOT moderated by third-party chat software (bots). Battle.net has such minimal functionality in the areas of chat, clans, and channel moderation that, in my opinion, bots are necessary for a satisfactory battle.net experience. Even Blizzard themselves understands how integral chat and moderation bots are in the battle.net gaming community, and let these hacks exist even when they could take them down! Anyway, my point is that bots are huge part of the battle.net community and there should be a section on them on this page, or at least a discussion. I fully understand that the above consists of my personal experiences and opinion, so I'll see what I can do to find some verifiable material. Swent (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Warring is for the most part, dead. There are still a few who load, like Scotland, Trooper, CoKeMaN, RicK, Justin. I load with Clan aC as CoKeMaN. Bots are, and most likely will be a big part of bnet until it gets shut down. (Cokeman2013 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

Why dont mention Hearthstone? Thats not a Battle.net game? --Bajnoczki (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Just out of date. Heroes of the Storms also needs added. -- ferret (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I see, is that a Battle.net 2.0 game? --Bajnoczki (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle.net. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


False information

Am I the only person here who has played this game? Under Diablo II it says 'This effectively put an end to cheating' referring to battle.net moving to client side. Diablo II over battle.net is so hack infested it's not even worth playing because most (not some, most) characters you encounter in duels are hacking in some way. There are maphacks, drophacks, bots, vision hacks, tp hacks, on and on...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.8.50 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2008

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle.net. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle.net/Archive_1&oldid=1030846642"