zulu nubs? :o

Angarika - Harshlands

Edit: to many ppl raged :P so easy to **** yall off. SS is gone be happy now.

SneakyStalk - Harshlands

I don't get it.

anyway, cool story, I guess?

Angarika - Harshlands

T_T I hate explaining it to noobs like u sneaky. But I will.

Click here

Click wizard

click crown of flames.

u need anymore help gimme a pm in game I am on :P.b:chuckle

Blumpkinator - Lost City

Angarika - Harshlands wrote: »

T_T I hate explaining it to noobs like u sneaky. But I will.

Click here

Click wizard

click crown of flames.

u need anymore help gimme a pm in game I am on :P.b:chuckle

whos the MG in your party anyways? b:question

Angarika - Harshlands

>.< I ain't going to be naming T_T maybe he is just new, I just wanted to get a good laugh. b:surrender I have changed.

also ding again

XuDin - Raging Tide

why is this even a thread

Angarika - Harshlands

Because I can make threads as I please. :)b:laugh

Plus I am a little drunk/high.b:shocked

Bloop - Harshlands

That would explain why you're posting and laughing at something that's not even remotely funny. It's also ironic that someone who's oracling to level is calling other people noobs.

Angarika - Harshlands

mmh well true I am oracling to lvl faster lol. To lazy to quest/BH/CS. Don't be mad Bloop I would be embarrassed if a person like that was in my guild too.b:surrender

But I don't think I am a noob lmao.b:surrender

Would u like me to take it down? I will if you want me to.b:pleased


WTB perfect iron hammers as well !!!

Rhyme - Harshlands

My Crown of Flames is Level 11 too.... it was level 1 untill i got the book for it.

There is this thing called a game. You need to do stuff to complete it. I will have all my skills if i get 1 more 100 skill and Sage Stone Barrier... Hell i even have Sage Frostblade

Angarika - Harshlands

Why would you even level those skills? One thing I have learned from lost city is that any end game wiz wouldn't even have those skills on there skill bar, let alone level them.b:surrender

threepointone

Angarika - Harshlands wrote: »

Why would you even level those skills? One thing I have learned from lost city is that any end game wiz wouldn't even have those skills on there skill bar, let alone level them.b:surrender

If you can afford all the skills, why not level them to 11? In 99% of the skills, the lvl 11 skill is better then having it at lvl 1, and if you're a completionist, you'll want to have all the skills, even if some are rarely used. I have Frostblade in my skillbar, great for getting chi.

/Groovy/ - Harshlands

Angarika - Harshlands wrote: »

Why would you even level those skills? One thing I have learned from lost city is that any end game wiz wouldn't even have those skills on there skill bar, let alone level them.b:surrender

I believe it was Haiz from Lost City who recommended this skill as quick finisher, when enemy has low HP and other fast skills are in cooldown. Lvl 11 is useful for improved range.

What I've learned about playing wizard is that every skill has its uses.

Rhyme - Harshlands

LLama: http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/llamapi3/80K.jpg


On of LC's best mages has it hotkeyed and Level 11


You need to get off your high horse thinking you are better than everyone else when in reality you are just a 14 year old fat kid who compensates for his unpopularity in school by crying on the forums about how feel people are.

Angarika - Harshlands

Rhyme - Harshlands wrote: »

LLama: http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/llamapi3/80K.jpg


On of LC's best mages has it hotkeyed and Level 11


You need to get off your high horse thinking you are better than everyone else when in reality you are just a 14 year old fat kid who compensates for his unpopularity in school by crying on the forums about how feel people are.

llama...well that's 1 mage you got anymore? High horse I don't like horses much anymore. Am I really 14? True I was fat when I was like 12 lmao. mmh I ain't unpopular in school lol actually I am so popular people from other schools know who I am, ain't that bad ****? xD and I ain't got a problem with how this mage plays, don't put words in my mouth :P. Also I think you made a spelling error on the "how feel people are" Did you mean "few"?b:shockedb:shocked

Like I said, it's quite a simple sentence, just say please take the screenshot down and I will lmao.

Alright kido's, This "14" year old needs his sleep .

Partypooper - Harshlands

http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy192/pokerkimm/ibtl_2.gif

XuDin - Raging Tide

its not locked yet
w00t

Tryagain - Harshlands

Rhyme - Harshlands wrote: »

You need to get off your high horse thinking you are better than everyone else when in reality you are just a 14 year old fat kid who compensates for his unpopularity in school by crying on the forums about how feel people are.

Irony.....

Avoniz - Harshlands

SCVs til 8, build a depot , rax at 11, gas at 12, pump your first marine at 14 ( have him watch your choke ), orbital command at 15, throw down your tech lab, build another rax at 17, scout with an scv the move him to a tower for sight.Macro up an army. Research concussion grenades and stimpack. Pump mass marauders, few rines and perhaps tech up to tanks / medivac, if you feel comfortable -> push.

Soysaucie - Harshlands

Well, phase 1 is ending soon so I figured I'd give one more go on this issue. TL;DR: Pie is delicious, and therefore you agree with me.Channels & Commands / Friends list I know this is a dead horse, but let me try to explain why chat channels were so critical in the first place. For me, it's not about finding friends or building a community or any of that mostly subjective nonsense. For me it's about having a reliable in-game tool to organize large custom games. A six-player limited party system with no idle zone does not do what chat channels did for game organization. In wc3 the vast majority of my time was spent organizing large custom games, be it FFA or RP-style maps or something else. So when you tell me that this feature isn't going to be in by release, well, you're basically telling me that I have no reason to buy the game at release. Simple is what the system was in wc3/sc1, and simple works. Now we have a convoluted naming/friends system where we could have had chat New naming system Because blizzard has done very little to communicate with us, we still don't know what we're getting for names at release. You removed the identifier, but we don't know if that's just to test out the facebook integration/real ID. I'm really hoping you don't go back to the identifier and simply make names unique like in the original games, which always worked out and still makes the most sense. There's also still the problem of multiple account names. It's great to combat smurfing, but people want to change their name every once and awhile. I don't think we should have to wait until the community fusses up a storm (which evidently did nothing for chat channels) just to implement work-arounds to the features you broke in the first place. It makes me feel uneasy about having yet another basic feature become capitalized on, which does not reflect well on blizzard. Map Publishing & Distribution The new map publishing system feels like blizzard is trying very hard to control map distribution, and maybe that's their goal. But I can tell you right now, you can't do away with locally hosted maps. The fact is that publishing to blizzard's official battle.net cloud will always mean new restrictions for the map creators because we're using up their bandwidth. Not just on filesize (which is dreadfully low as it is now), but also on the number of physical maps you can produce, and on the names you can give those maps. If blizzard is truly interested in providing the best for its playerbase (and not just capitalizing on them), why not offer a locally hosted system in addition to the new system. Better yet, why not reserve official publishing for high popularity/premium maps? , the user interface for this new system is a mess. No map title screen means no way to communicate how you want to play a game (and don't bring up "game modes" because sometimes players want to play in a way not specified by the map author). It also means that you have no way of joining a specific game. When you join a certain game type, you are put in queue for the next available game of that type. You are never guaranteed to join the game by a certain person. That might seem vague, but I at least recall a lot of situations where I wanted to join a game by a specific person (who may not be on your friends list). In the new system I have no way of doing that. Popularity feature means new maps don't ever get a chance to shine. Having a "show new maps only" feature does not really make that situation any better. Searching by type/popularity is a great idea, but it should not be the default and it should definitely not be your only recourse. Lack of password based system for private maps is just adding unneeded frustration to large game organization. In wc3 if you wanted to organize any sort of large game be it a tournament, a 12-player FFA, WW3 map, or RP or whatever--all you had to do was get people together in a chat channel and tell them your game name/password. In the new system you have to keep track of everyone individually, you have to invite them individually and they have to be on your friends list or someone else's friends list. This is just inconvenient, and it really highlights just how necessary chat channels were. Unique names for custom maps means people sit and reserve map names, which, while not a huge deal--is still a problem. Why can't we just publish any map name we want regardless of if its been used? It makes sense for this new publishing system, but its a restriction I don't want to deal with in the first place. n the new map publishing system, when map makers delete their map from the cloud you can never play it again. I'm a map maker myself and I don't think map makers should be able to dictate whether people can play their map anymore. If you publish it then its done. In the new system, players can host a map and then idle and players are forcibly redirected to their game until it has started or the slots are full. The custom game chat lobby is too small, much smaller than the ones in wc3/sc1 (which were arguably too small to begin with). This is going to make large custom games very hectic when you want to communicate something to the players. Having to scroll down to view all the players in the lobby is just annoying. You really need to downsize the UI a bit here. Players can't freely choose teams in custom games, the host has to do it for them. If this was some sort of intended feature at least add a setting the host can switch between that frees/locks players into place. I can understand that maybe blizzard is trying to prepare for the premium map marketplace, but you need to do better than this. New features should not come with less freedoms, ever. If they do, then you have to wonder if blizzard is trying harder to capitalize than it is trying to make the best product it possibly can.Slow User Interface This is probably more of a "it's beta issue," but I don't think it gets raised enough. The UI animations for battle.net 2.0 feel very laggy/clunky. It might just be me, but I've heard the same thing from others and my computer is plenty capable of running this game on ultra so it's not that. It feels like a poorly done flash animation, whereas the animations in wc3 felt much more streamlined.Thanks for finally writing out a well constructed argument explaining the problems people are having with B.net 2.0. I'm not much of a custom game player, so honestly most of these gripes don't really effect me. However, since you've written so well, I now fully understand why many people are frustrated with the new system. This has a decently simple solution. Just make copies of the games with the title -AR or -AP or something. Like one map is DotA -AR and another is DotA -AP. Any map type that would become popular would probably be easily copied and adjusted. The other issue would be made easier by chat channels in general. Although this is impossible atm.I agree with the OP, particularly about channels, custom game names, and the way custom games are joined (personally, I think the custom game system from previous Blizzard titles was great, but it could use a text-based search/filter feature, say if you wanted only to see DotA games). One thing that could be improved in the original post: towards the end, you mix up "custom map" and "custom game". If you went through and changed a number of places where you say "map" to "custom game", it'd make it clearer.

XuDin - Raging Tide

Soysaucie - Harshlands wrote: »

Well, phase 1 is ending soon so I figured I'd give one more go on this issue. TL;DR: Pie is delicious, and therefore you agree with me.Channels & Commands / Friends list I know this is a dead horse, but let me try to explain why chat channels were so critical in the first place. For me, it's not about finding friends or building a community or any of that mostly subjective nonsense. For me it's about having a reliable in-game tool to organize large custom games. A six-player limited party system with no idle zone does not do what chat channels did for game organization. In wc3 the vast majority of my time was spent organizing large custom games, be it FFA or RP-style maps or something else. So when you tell me that this feature isn't going to be in by release, well, you're basically telling me that I have no reason to buy the game at release. Simple is what the system was in wc3/sc1, and simple works. Now we have a convoluted naming/friends system where we could have had chat New naming system Because blizzard has done very little to communicate with us, we still don't know what we're getting for names at release. You removed the identifier, but we don't know if that's just to test out the facebook integration/real ID. I'm really hoping you don't go back to the identifier and simply make names unique like in the original games, which always worked out and still makes the most sense. There's also still the problem of multiple account names. It's great to combat smurfing, but people want to change their name every once and awhile. I don't think we should have to wait until the community fusses up a storm (which evidently did nothing for chat channels) just to implement work-arounds to the features you broke in the first place. It makes me feel uneasy about having yet another basic feature become capitalized on, which does not reflect well on blizzard. Map Publishing & Distribution The new map publishing system feels like blizzard is trying very hard to control map distribution, and maybe that's their goal. But I can tell you right now, you can't do away with locally hosted maps. The fact is that publishing to blizzard's official battle.net cloud will always mean new restrictions for the map creators because we're using up their bandwidth. Not just on filesize (which is dreadfully low as it is now), but also on the number of physical maps you can produce, and on the names you can give those maps. If blizzard is truly interested in providing the best for its playerbase (and not just capitalizing on them), why not offer a locally hosted system in addition to the new system. Better yet, why not reserve official publishing for high popularity/premium maps? , the user interface for this new system is a mess. No map title screen means no way to communicate how you want to play a game (and don't bring up "game modes" because sometimes players want to play in a way not specified by the map author). It also means that you have no way of joining a specific game. When you join a certain game type, you are put in queue for the next available game of that type. You are never guaranteed to join the game by a certain person. That might seem vague, but I at least recall a lot of situations where I wanted to join a game by a specific person (who may not be on your friends list). In the new system I have no way of doing that. Popularity feature means new maps don't ever get a chance to shine. Having a "show new maps only" feature does not really make that situation any better. Searching by type/popularity is a great idea, but it should not be the default and it should definitely not be your only recourse. Lack of password based system for private maps is just adding unneeded frustration to large game organization. In wc3 if you wanted to organize any sort of large game be it a tournament, a 12-player FFA, WW3 map, or RP or whatever--all you had to do was get people together in a chat channel and tell them your game name/password. In the new system you have to keep track of everyone individually, you have to invite them individually and they have to be on your friends list or someone else's friends list. This is just inconvenient, and it really highlights just how necessary chat channels were. Unique names for custom maps means people sit and reserve map names, which, while not a huge deal--is still a problem. Why can't we just publish any map name we want regardless of if its been used? It makes sense for this new publishing system, but its a restriction I don't want to deal with in the first place. n the new map publishing system, when map makers delete their map from the cloud you can never play it again. I'm a map maker myself and I don't think map makers should be able to dictate whether people can play their map anymore. If you publish it then its done. In the new system, players can host a map and then idle and players are forcibly redirected to their game until it has started or the slots are full. The custom game chat lobby is too small, much smaller than the ones in wc3/sc1 (which were arguably too small to begin with). This is going to make large custom games very hectic when you want to communicate something to the players. Having to scroll down to view all the players in the lobby is just annoying. You really need to downsize the UI a bit here. Players can't freely choose teams in custom games, the host has to do it for them. If this was some sort of intended feature at least add a setting the host can switch between that frees/locks players into place. I can understand that maybe blizzard is trying to prepare for the premium map marketplace, but you need to do better than this. New features should not come with less freedoms, ever. If they do, then you have to wonder if blizzard is trying harder to capitalize than it is trying to make the best product it possibly can.Slow User Interface This is probably more of a "it's beta issue," but I don't think it gets raised enough. The UI animations for battle.net 2.0 feel very laggy/clunky. It might just be me, but I've heard the same thing from others and my computer is plenty capable of running this game on ultra so it's not that. It feels like a poorly done flash animation, whereas the animations in wc3 felt much more streamlined.Thanks for finally writing out a well constructed argument explaining the problems people are having with B.net 2.0. I'm not much of a custom game player, so honestly most of these gripes don't really effect me. However, since you've written so well, I now fully understand why many people are frustrated with the new system. This has a decently simple solution. Just make copies of the games with the title -AR or -AP or something. Like one map is DotA -AR and another is DotA -AP. Any map type that would become popular would probably be easily copied and adjusted. The other issue would be made easier by chat channels in general. Although this is impossible atm.I agree with the OP, particularly about channels, custom game names, and the way custom games are joined (personally, I think the custom game system from previous Blizzard titles was great, but it could use a text-based search/filter feature, say if you wanted only to see DotA games). One thing that could be improved in the original post: towards the end, you mix up "custom map" and "custom game". If you went through and changed a number of places where you say "map" to "custom game", it'd make it clearer.

I cant agree with you on that. What i think is that the harmonic analysis is conventionally based on the Fourier transform, which is a way of expressing a signal as a sum of sine and cosine waves. You gotta work harder on this.