World Editor?

[Volvox]

Indeed. If anyone used python here, i'd say it's a nice example of a hybrid programming language and i'd like to see some of it's features in the new we.

 

[Element of Water]

C++ has structs as a matter of fact... I believe they're faster than classes or something.

 

[Eleandor]

C++ is a hybrid language. It's also a language backwards compatible with c, which is a procedural language.

 

[Element of Water]

Good point actually... you can compile C code with a C++ compiler, therefore C++ needs to have every feature of C...

 

[Volvox]

Yet if it's gonna be based of C, it does not mean it's gonna have all C++ features, obviously.

 

[Element of Water]

At this stage we weren't actually talking about StarCraft

 

[Eleandor]

Good point actually... you can compile C code with a C++ compiler, therefore C++ needs to have every feature of C...

As a matter of fact, there are c++ compilers which basically compile the code back into c and then use a c compiler. It's more or less the same as what happens with vjass.

 

[Eleandor]

I've thought of a new concept in SC2 World editor, and I think it'd be soooo neat.


Doodad grouping:

Someone has made this unbelievable model of a Cathedral:
YouTube - Adventure of Fishing - Cathedral Design - Warcraft 3 Map

He comes to realise he needs to do any of following things:
- Rescale the whole cathedral
- Rotate the cathedral
- Move the Cathedral
- Copy the cathedral

Each one of those situations has annoying problems in world edit. I'm pretty sure none of these (or 1 at most) have been solved in SC2. Let's sum up the problems:

- Selecting the whole cathedral is a pain in the ass, to say the least. It's not easy at all to select each doodad without selecting doodads you don't need to select, etc.
- Editing each selected doodad as a whole is not possible. Rotating all selected doodads rotates them around their own central point instead of the central point of the doodads as a whole. The same counts for rescaling.
- Doodad height is reset when moving (although there's a way to avoid this in wc3), and unavoidable when copying doodads

So I'm thinking of a very useful Doodad Grouping feature:
- Create a new group of doodads. You can either edit the group which allows you to edit the doodads it contains (or add, remove), or edit the group as a whole: Rotate all doodads in the group around the central point, scale the whole group in 3 dimensions, all respecting the relative position of the doodads inside the group.
- Copy groups of doodads. This seems an extremely powerful feature. Not alone can you simply copy/paste the same object on your map (and preserving doodad heights!!!) but this would even allow copying a doodad group from 1 map to another. Yes, you hear me coming: I want to be able to download that awesome Cathedral on the hive and use it in my map!
- Recursive groups: Make a huge mozaic church window (made of several tiny glass doodads), group it, copy the group multiple times and place them in the church, and then group the church containing those groups of windows.
- groups as components: Very useful in our previous example: link doodad sets of the same type: any change made to 1 doodad set is done to ALL sets that are linked (and thus considered a component). I need to make a tiny change to my window doodad group? Changing 1 window will change all windows in the church!



Implementing it wouldn't even be THAT hard I think...

 

[The_Silent]

Some programs have a grouping function (Sure you know, if you don't it normally ''glues'' several objects together as one single object) witch would be very nice to see in SC2.

 

[Eleandor]

It's not something that I've seen done in a game editor... I mean, obviously modelling programs have such options, but...

 

[redmarine]

Eleandor, post it on their forums: Battle.net - English Forums -> StarCraft II General Discussion

 

[rober artua]

Eleandor, U can model this cathedral in 3d application like in 3ds max even better and optimized from scratch .

Or u can simply import all doodads from wc into max and make them as one model . IT is damn easy ! U do not have to texture them or animate . U will have more control on your doodads in 3d app than in wc editor + u can edit its geometry and add some more stuff , make anims if u wish ...... U can make ur city in Max and place it in editor as one model .

 

[redmarine]

Eleandor, U can model this cathedral in 3d application like in 3ds max even better and optimized from scratch .

Or u can simply import all doodads from wc into max and make them as one model . IT is damn easy ! U do not have to texture them or animate . U will have more control on your doodads in 3d app than in wc editor + u can edit its geometry and add some more stuff , make anims if u wish ...... U can make ur city in Max and place it in editor as one model .

It might take less space if you create the buildings using doodads. Then again, we don't use extra texture if we use a 3d modeling application.

 

[rober artua]

It might take less space if you create the buildings using doodads. Then again, we don't use extra texture if we use a 3d modeling application.

It will take more space if u use doodads like the guy in the video . Why ?
Well he used lots of same doodads just to make the roof while u can make the roof with less polygons in 3d app by making one simple model of roof . Or as I said before u can use exactly same doodads to make ur one model in 3d app and u wont loose any of the textures .
Just import all the doodads u need and place them as u wish in 3d app , then export back into wc and here u are

I can not understand quite well what did u mean by saying that we do not use extra texture ?

 

[redmarine]

It will take more space if u use doodads like the guy in the video . Why ?
Well he used lots of same doodads just to make the roof while u can make the roof with less polygons in 3d app by making one simple model of roof . Or as I said before u can use exactly same doodads to make ur one model in 3d app and u wont loose any of the textures .
Just import all the doodads u need and place them as u wish in 3d app , then export back into wc and here u are

I can not understand quite well what did u mean by saying that we do not use extra texture ?

Nvm I forgot about the less poly stuff.
Reusable texture/skin.

 

[rober artua]

Nvm I forgot about the less poly stuff.
Reusable texture/skin.

I still dont understand what do u mean with the textures but if u import doodad in max it will have texture coordinates as u already might Know . So it is up to u which textures u would like to use and which not . U can create even more textures ur self if u want .

There is one thing which bothers me :

For example I made a mountain in Max , right ? Then I want to place it in WC and I want unit to be able to go on top of the hill . Is it possible ? ( Or a wall with steps )

 

[Eleandor]

Eleandor, U can model this cathedral in 3d application like in 3ds max even better and optimized from scratch .

Or u can simply import all doodads from wc into max and make them as one model . IT is damn easy ! U do not have to texture them or animate . U will have more control on your doodads in 3d app than in wc editor + u can edit its geometry and add some more stuff , make anims if u wish ...... U can make ur city in Max and place it in editor as one model .

1) Not everyone has 3ds max
2) Not everyone has 3600 $ to buy it
3) Not everyone just downloads an illegal version
4) Not everyone can use it in the first place, whether you find it easy or not. I mean, I'm still waiting for your model pack of 100 unique high detailed warcraft 3 model houses with total size less than, say, 1Mb.
5) Not having to texture it? Liek wtf? Even using in-game textures will require unwrapping skill and time to do this
6) It's pretty probable there WILL be a file size limit. I'm pretty sure you'll have to watch out for modelsize too in SC2, if not for hardcoded limits, then for download time limitations
7) I have yet to see the first epic sized+detailed warcraft 3 model. Sure, there are good models, but there's a very, very large lack of detail in models of the size of such a Cathedral. I mean, honestly, I don't see any good large-scale building models in warcraft 3, and SC2 will even require much larger detail in their models, making the creation of a successful model even harder, so your argument of simply downloading a unimeshed model totally dies here, because there won't BE any.
8) People WILL make Doodad structures (and other doodad compositions), and they WILL look better than equivalent models. I'm sure of that. So then you better give a decent support for doodad sets right away.

Do the test: Ask a good terrainer to construct a city out of MorpheusX's house parts models, or out of simple doodads such as the ones this Cathedral was made of (mainly made of Dalaran walls, columns, arcs). Then show me a model that looks nicer.
You probably won't find a single model.

Or u can simply import all doodads from wc into max and make them as one model

Oh right, for each single small change I wish to make I'll go edit the model and reimport it again? No, thank you, I want to make the changes instantly.

 

[rober artua]

1) Not everyone has 3ds max
2) Not everyone has 3600 $ to buy it
3) Not everyone just downloads an illegal version
4) Not everyone can use it in the first place, whether you find it easy or not. I mean, I'm still waiting for your model pack of 100 unique high detailed warcraft 3 model houses with total size less than, say, 1Mb.
5) Not having to texture it? Liek wtf? Even using in-game textures will require unwrapping skill and time to do this
6) It's pretty probable there WILL be a file size limit. I'm pretty sure you'll have to watch out for modelsize too in SC2, if not for hardcoded limits, then for download time limitations
7) I have yet to see the first epic sized+detailed warcraft 3 model. Sure, there are good models, but there's a very, very large lack of detail in models of the size of such a Cathedral. I mean, honestly, I don't see any good large-scale building models in warcraft 3, and SC2 will even require much larger detail in their models, making the creation of a successful model even harder, so your argument of simply downloading a unimeshed model totally dies here, because there won't BE any.
8) People WILL make Doodad structures (and other doodad compositions), and they WILL look better than equivalent models. I'm sure of that. So then you better give a decent support for doodad sets right away.

Do the test: Ask a good terrainer to construct a city out of MorpheusX's house parts models, or out of simple doodads such as the ones this Cathedral was made of (mainly made of Dalaran walls, columns, arcs). Then show me a model that looks nicer.
You probably won't find a single model.


Oh right, for each single small change I wish to make I'll go edit the model and reimport it again? No, thank you, I want to make the changes instantly.

There are several 3d apps like milkshape or Gmax which are free to use . U did not understand my point ! What is doodad ?! Doodad is a model , right ?! Well u can import this model into 3d app and build same cathedral with these imported doodads and export back into wc ! And u do not need to texture it coz these doodads are already textured ! My method is the same as u do in Wc map editor but u will get the united doodads .

WTF about : "I want to make changes instantly ?! " Maybe u want to have one button which will create u the desired terrain ?!

Import/Export Is not that hard just few button clicks

File size limit ! The dude in the video has used so many doodads that if u sum up all the polys u will get about 5k polys in total . Well if u make few buildings in this way ur map will be laggy on some not so powerful PCs . Remember one doodad isnt one poly

 

[Eleandor]

There are several 3d apps like milkshape or Gmax which are free to use . U did not understand my point ! What is doodad ?! Doodad is a model , right ?! Well u can import this model into 3d app and build same cathedral with these imported doodads and export back into wc ! And u do not need to texture it coz these doodads are already textured ! My method is the same as u do in Wc map editor but u will get the united doodads . Do I neeeeed to show u a picture example ?!!!!

I did understand that already, and the thing I said was: it's much easier and user friendly if you just "double click" a doodad group and add / remove doodads rather than having to import wc3 models in 3dmax all the time and export it every time you make a small change, just to see if it looks ok in-game.

Maybe u want to have one button which will create u the desired terrain ?!

We're not talking about the terrain. Like I said, making such a cathedral is a process in which you constantly change stuff, save your map and see if it looks good in your map. If I need to change a detail, I want it to be changed instantly in the editor, and I don't want to be importing/exporting the model a thousand times before I'm happy with the result.

Besides, the texture info tends to get totally screwed up in blender sometimes, and I have pretty bad experiences with file format converters in free programs.

File size limit ! The dude in the video has used so many doodads that if u sum up all the polys u will get about 5k polys in total . Well if u make few buildings in this way ur map will be laggy on some not so powerful PCs .

Right.
1) If I'm honest, it's probably more than 5K polys, so you're obviously right on the optimisation part, but optimising needs to be done in your model editor, which asks time again, and thus doodad sets would once again be faster.
2) The number of polygons influences the filesize of a model, but it does not influence the filesize of your map! That's the whole point! For each column in the cathedral (and there's 100s of them?) you store the polygons ONCE in your map, and then a 100 times the position of the object. So basically, while the total polycount is larger, the file size would be lower.
3) Let's overexagerate it and say it's 10 k polies. Well, no offence, but it's 2008. Crysis renders millions of polygons on the screen each second, so I don't think rendering 10K polies for 1 "object" on the map (which is large in dimensions and quickly takes up 4 screens when viewed on default view) is too demanding, even for old pc's. Even then, graphics are scaleable. If you're really playing on a piece of junk, turn off some fancy effects, maybe turn down the resolution and you're fine. Then there's another advantage which probably will solve the "high polyness" instantly: When you have 1 model and only view half of it, it's still completely rendered off-screen. When you have 1 object made of 1000 doodads, you only have to render half of the polygons.

 

[rober artua]

Maaaan u are soo wrong ! Doodad is a model and if u have 10 000 doodads it means u have 10 000 models ! IF one doodad is 5 polys then 10 000 doodads are equal to 50 000 polys in total . And they all are rendered even if u cant see them

The thing is that u have control on these doodads in 3d app . U can cut them , add more detail or do what ever u want to do with them . Remember these doodads are actually MODELS which were made in 3d app . This is not about how many polys u use but how u use them . U can make way better models with same numbers of polys .

What do u mean small change ? So for u this cathedral is small change ?

For example here are few buildings with total poly count of 17 000 polys : http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3ds-max-houses-chapel-castles/246428

It is about two cathedrals like in the video .

 

[Element of Water]

FFS don't you get it? You only need ONE model for each type of doodad! That model is stored ONCE. It's the POSITIONS of the doodads which are stored 10k times or whatever. That means just 3 numbers for each doodad. Just 3, ok? Now shut up and stop spamming the thread.

 

[Element of Water]

The stuff that is actually rendered on the screen, is only what you see. The rest is not actually there at all, other than in virtual memory. Only the polys that you see are rendered, basically. About the file size thing, lots of doodads is a MUCH lower filesize than all those doodad models in one model file, because of what I said before - it only stores the coordinates of the doodads, not the actual model 10k times, wheras if you put them all in one model file, it will store all of those polys 10k times!

 

[rober artua]

FFS don't you get it? You only need ONE model for each type of doodad! That model is stored ONCE. It's the POSITIONS of the doodads which are stored 10k times or whatever. That means just 3 numbers for each doodad. Just 3, ok? Now shut up and stop spamming the thread.

Well sorry if I am wrong I just wanted to give u a solution . If it is so as u said perhaps you could give me more explanations on this . Where did u get this info ? I still think that all geometry what u see in the game is fully rendered . So if u have five doodads of same kind with five polys each it will give u 25 polys in total in ur game . I just cant understand how u can see geometry which ectually doesnt exist .

Is it like when u look at cathedral ur pc will render all 10 000 polys but when ur camera does not look at it ur pc wont render all 10 000 polys ?

Actually I think it is same with normal models . When u look at model ur pc renders it but when u are not looking at it ur pc does not render it .

Anyway where did u get this info ? Can u prove ur words ?

About spamming : U could safe place by editing ur previous thread instead of making new one !

 

[Eleandor]

It's basically how 3D rendering works in 99% of all 3D games...

Where did u get this info ?

I study computer science.

So if u have five doodads of same kind with five polys each it will give u 25 polys in total in ur game

Here's what happens:
On your hard drive you have your map. It contains all information on all imported models. To keep it simple, let's say we have a cube model (12 triangles). The most elementary information (ignoring stuff like texturing, uvmapping, animations) is:

- Vertices:
vertex 1: 0.0, 1.0, 1.0 (on gpu the standard is 4 bytes per vertex IIRC)
vertex 2: 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 (x, y, z coordinates)
...
vertex 6
- Triangles:
Triangle 1: 1, 2, 3 (uses vertex 1, 2 and 3)
Triangle 2: 1, 2, 4
...
Triangle 12
- Objects:
Object 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (basically all triangles in this simple example)
- Other information (textures, animations, particles, uvmap, etc.)

On your map, you only have the model once. You store relative positions, i.e.

Doodad0000 : x1, y1, z1, sx1, sy1, sz1, angle
Doodad0001 : x2, y2, z2, sx2, sy2, sz2, angle
etc.

You can see that for each instance of the doodad, you have to store 3 coordinates and 3 scaling factors. For a model as simple as this, your filesize is already smaller for 2 instances of the same model, than if you would have 2 cube objects in the same model (twice the filesize)

When the map loads in warcraft 3, for each doodad on the map, vertices, triangles and objects are loaded on your GPU ram. It's pretty easy to do so: for each vertex you do:
Vertex 1: 0.0 + x1, 1.0 + y1, 1.0 + z1
Vertex 2: 0.0 + x1, 1.0 + y1, 0.0 + z1
etc.

The same for doodad 2, but then relative to doodad 2's coordinates. So once they're loaded in your memory, the size is equally large as simply having 2 cubes in 1 model file. Indeed, there you would have an advantage in optimising the model, but IMO not an incredible one.

When a frame is rendered, each model that's not visible (done through a clipping algorithm) is skipped, hence why a map with 1000 units doesn't lag your ass off. Each model that's still left will have its polygons projected on the screen (usually done by z-buffering). Usually, this is speed up by clipping the polygons too and by backface culling (fast way to detect whether you're seeing the front or the back of a face. If you're seeing the back, skip it).

The efficiency of the z-buffering algorithm (most used in 3D games) depends on:
- resolution (# pixels on screen)
- # polygons to be rendered

Anyway where did u get this info ? Can u prove ur words ?

The best proof I have is, obviously, that if you have a map with 10 000 doodads (each averaging at a very low 300 triangles) and on top of that terrainpolygons (an 128 * 128 map is another 32 768 triangles) would mean you'd be rendering 3032768 per frame, at 60 frames per second that's 181 966 080. Now I know there're powerful gpu's on the market, but even for those gpu's, rendering almost 200 million triangles per second sounds pretty high.
Otherwise, check out some books on 3D rendering or wikipedia...

 

[redmarine]

Eleandor, it's also much more fun to build up buildings from scratch.

 

[rober artua]

Well it looks like doodads works like proxy objects in Max . I remember I used to have about 50 trees in one scene . I used one model of tree which was 2 000 000 polys .

Close up of same trees :

VRayProxy allows you to import geometry from an external mesh at render time only. The geometry is not present in the 3ds Max scene and does not take any resources. This allows the rendering of scenes with many millions of triangles - more than 3ds Max itself can handle.

It looks like it is a problem for ppl who do not know how to model . U can still make better quality building with appropriate number of polys but it will cost u more time and u need to have much more skills . All the same a model made in 3d app has more advantages

Blizzard should update their import for wc editor . It should convert same objects into doodads after importing into game . Or something in this way I suppose

 

[Eleandor]

All the same a model made in 3d app has more advantages

That'll always be inevitable. But what'll also be inevitable is the fact that people will still make doodad compositions, and probably many too.

Blizzard should update their import for wc editor . It should convert same objects into doodads after importing into game . Or something in this way I suppose

That wouldn't be too smart. The editor doesn't know if the model will be used for a doodad, unit, effect, anything... On top of that, it can't predict what the other fields of a doodad should be. A doodad is much more than just a model.

 

[Andyoyo]

It needs a lot of pathing changes, right now War3editor basically is limited to single-level environments, you can't have a 2-layer house easily, pathing is tweaked up with putting 2 different types of cliffs near eachother, etc.

 

[IncubiProtocoL]

I think a built in model editor would be sweet. Maybe something like blender, but without the need to convert files.

Also in the sound editor you should be able to edit/cut sound files. Ability to compress and change formats. Maybe you could do voice overs inside the editor with a microphone. Sound manipulators are hard to find. Actually I gave up on finding a free one.

100mb maps that are quick downloads on b.net would be sweet. Adding even a 60 second sound file increase file size in wc3 tons. Like to be able to import an entire album to a map if I want =D.

A built it image editor for making textures/loading screens/etc. With capability of saving in many formats.

Ability to change mouse setup. Like drag right click to change your camera in a rpg map. Left click to fire your gun in a FPS? Also body part detection would be nice in a FPS. Player A left clicked head of Player B then do. Display HEAD SHOT!. Kill Player B.

UI keys/Force UI key should be more dynamic. My custom boot system force Player X to press alt+f4 lol. Or a custom spell force Player X to press the windows key haha.

Saving caches should be better. Make it easier to save rpg heroes in an rpg. Tired of typing in these case sensitive 30 digit loading codes.

 

[Serbianbeast]

I think a built in model editor would be sweet.

Also in the sound editor you should be able to edit/cut sound files.

100mb maps that are quick downloads on b.net would be sweet.

A built it image editor for making textures/loading screens/etc.

Ability to change mouse setup.

UI keys/Force UI key should be more dynamic.

Saving caches should be better.

Great ides, tho the map downloading, model, sound and image ones have low chances of being seen in scum edit...

 

[Eleandor]

I think a built in model editor would be sweet. Maybe something like blender, but without the need to convert files.

It's been confirmed there will NOT be a model editor included.

Also in the sound editor you should be able to edit/cut sound files. Ability to compress and change formats.

They're automatically compressed when they're in the MPQ archive. If you need lossy compression methods, there are free programs downloadable that get the job done...

100mb maps that are quick downloads on b.net would be sweet. Adding even a 60 second sound file increase file size in wc3 tons. Like to be able to import an entire album to a map if I want =D.

I guess fast downloads will be accessible when you pay for battle.net premium, but otherwise, it'll be as fast as the host's upload is...

 

[Gikon]

I guess fast downloads will be accessible when you pay for battle.net premium, but otherwise, it'll be as fast as the host's upload is...

BATTLE NET WHAT?!?! *Throws down iron fist*

 

[Newuser]

BATTLE NET WHAT?!?! *Throws down iron fist*

Most of battle.net is still free, only the fancy stuff is going to cost money.

 

[Gikon]

Most of battle.net is still free, only the fancy stuff is going to cost money.

I demand proof to this slander! Really blizzard would never do such a thing...would they...has blizzard the world's greatest game company (besides my employer...>_<) do such slander?..It really does not sound like them...

 

[redmarine]

I demand proof to this slander! Really blizzard would never do such a thing...would they...has blizzard the world's greatest game company (besides my employer...>_<) do such slander?..It really does not sound like them...

It's up to them to decide how they run their business. They are still one of the greatest game development company that exists.

 

[Andyoyo]

battlenet will be free lol, if there was a battle net premium the earnings would end up going to the mapmakers probably. Blizzard knows better & at this point its just gossip from a troll.

 

[Eleandor]

battlenet will be free lol, if there was a battle net premium the earnings would end up going to the mapmakers probably. Blizzard knows better & at this point its just gossip from a troll.

...

There will be a battle.net premium. Look up any interview about battle.net with Rob Pardo on google and you'll see it. But it's not because there'll be a premium battle.net that there will no longer be a battle.net as it is now. They're not gonna add limitations to the current battle.net, they're just adding features, features you'd have to pay for if you want them. Since bandwidth costs money, something like "fast downloads" would seem a perfect candidate for such a feature. Another candidate would be some sort of VOIP feature, or maybe an amount of free storage space on the servers (in case they add functionality for savegames of RPG's to be saved on the servers, they'll probably add a storage limit to froobs)

Also, there's absolutely no reason why earnings from battle.net premium would go to mapmakers.
- Features you'd have to pay for would probably have nothing to do with custom maps or the people that make them. It's not as if you'll have to pay to play a custom map on battle.net.
- mapmakers have no right to call theirselves the owner of the map. If you read the EULA of warcraft 3 there's absolutely no reason why they would deserve any earnings.

 

[redmarine]

...
- mapmakers have no right to call theirselves the owner of the map. If you read the EULA of warcraft 3 there's absolutely no reason why they would deserve any earnings.

Scum Editor includes a protection feature to give authors full credit and ownership...

 

[Zaljinzoo]

I'd like to be able to have a thing where you could easily make new models, like a step by step tutorial to go along with model editor that would pwn

 

[redmarine]

I'd like to be able to have a thing where you could easily make new models, like a step by step tutorial to go along with model editor that would pwn

It wouldn't really matter as there are hundreds of 3D editing applications with very good tutorials.

 

[SamuraiGorge]

battlenet will be free lol, if there was a battle net premium the earnings would end up going to the mapmakers probably. Blizzard knows better & at this point its just gossip from a troll.

- mapmakers have no right to call theirselves the owner of the map. If you read the EULA of warcraft 3 there's absolutely no reason why they would deserve any earnings.

Scum Editor includes a protection feature to give authors full credit and ownership...

He was referring to the person who said Blizzard might pay map makers for making map.

Anyway, map makers do not get "full credit and ownership", it's partial credit and ownership; the map belongs to Blizzard more than it belongs to the person who made the map.
From the EULA:

2. Ownership. All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and "applets" incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors.

Also, adding "official" protection does not mean that the map 100% fully belongs to the maker of the map, as the map maker is using Blizzard's tools and making the map for Blizzard's game, which means they have to agree with the EULA, thus meaning that Blizzard owns the map more than the author does.


Anyway, regarding Battle.net premium, Blizzard has said for a long time that SC2 and D3 will feature a lot of new battle.net features so it's no surprised that they're adding a pay for "extras" option on battle.net.

I can "imagine"(speculation, not definite) what a few of the "pay" features will be:

1. An upgrade to the maximum amount of friends you can have(you can only have 25 max currently, maybe it upgrades all the way to 100 max friends).
2. Being able to host maps larger than 4MB(that'd be nice).
3. Faster upload speeds. maybe you can "upload" maps on Blizzard's server, and when players join the game, the maps will be downloaded from Blizzard's server rather than your computer. Maybe the entire game would be hosted using Blizzard's server also rather than your computer/internet connection.

That's what I'd imagine some of the new pay features being.

Also, here was what Eleandor was referring to:

Link 1
Link 2

Question:So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?

Answer: Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.

With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.

 

[Serbianbeast]

I wonder if sc editor will support maps that let others join when the game is already up... You know... A perfect ORPG, or general MMO system. And if yes, if it would support multimaps and letting one player play in one map and other in some other and stuff like that

 

[LordDz]

I wonder if sc editor will support maps that let others join when the game is already up... You know... A perfect ORPG, or general MMO system. And if yes, if it would support multimaps and letting one player play in one map and other in some other and stuff like that

Like in GG2?
Would be nice, but I doubt it...

I wish the host would have a way of not getting the ''Pause-and-block-whole-screen-kick'' .

 

[Serbianbeast]

Well... could be doable actually, but that would require separate sections of hosted maps on battle net... the ones made in this style

 

[LordDz]

I wonder if sc editor will support maps that let others join when the game is already up... You know... A perfect ORPG, or general MMO system. And if yes, if it would support multimaps and letting one player play in one map and other in some other and stuff like that

When I think of it...
They said that Multiplayer Campaigns WOULD work. (source from a Batch from Karune, search 'em).

So I guess it could work in some strange way.

 

[Volvox]

Well, multiplayer campaigns are one thing but full mmo system, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of wow?

 

[Serbianbeast]

Well, multiplayer campaigns are one thing but full mmo system, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of wow?

Depends of how persistant in making a good mmo map we are, or group of maps linked together. But ye that would be a threat to their main money source.

 

[redmarine]

Depends of how persistant in making a good mmo map we are, or group of maps linked together. But ye that would be a threat to their main money source.

It'll be a mmorpg worth a play for StarCraft players not WoW.

 

[Volvox]

Map makers have proven their ability to turn blizzard games into something more times and times again. Giving them a free mmo system would be a really altruistic move.

 

[Newuser]

Well, multiplayer campaigns are one thing but full mmo system, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of wow?

Depends of how persistant in making a good mmo map we are, or group of maps linked together. But ye that would be a threat to their main money source.

Like redmarine said, it probably won't be a threat to WoW.

There are dozens of free(or semi-free) MMORPGs out there, most of them are not a threat to WoW(WoW has one of the largest MMORPG market out of every MMORPG, including free ones).

Not to mention there is Diablo 2 and 3(Blizzard's own games, which will have no monthly fee), and those aren't even a threat to WoW(if they were, Blizzard would have shut down the D2 server years ago). Diablo 3 is staying free because they know millions of people will still play WoW.

There's a different type of "game play" experience between playing full-fledge MMORPGs and just regular ORPGs(like Diablo, or Warcraft 3/SC2 ORPGs).

It's kind of similar to saying Warcraft 3 and Starcraft have different game play. Just because they're similar(both RTS), doesn't mean players have to 'choose" which one they want to play, and "only play" that one.

I like playing Starcraft sometimes and sometimes I like playing Warcraft 3.

Same can be said for MMORPGs and ORPGs - people can play both WoW and Diablo 3 at the same time if they wanted to, they don't to "quit" one to play the other. Sure there is a monthly fee for WoW, regardless of whether you're playing or not but some people won't mind paying to keep their account on WoW, even though they're not playing WoW.