|
I agree on all points except vsRace selection - this reminds me of players that like to switch races on the last second of countdown.
But have you noticed the following in a recent Blizzcast?
"Rob Simpson: One of the newest additions we're unveiling for beta is the Battle.net platform. The StarCraft II beta will mark the first time that testers will be given the opportunity to experience and enjoy what it has to offer. What are some of your favorite features in Battle.net and what other features can the community expect to utilize in the future?
Dustin Browder: This is still an early version of what we're planning on for Battle.net for StarCraft II. This is really a beta focused on play balance and on testing server load. It's not something we're really focused on showing off Battle.net features. We really want players focused on the things that are important to us."
Let's hope this is true.
|
On February 27 2010 00:39 pioneer8 wrote:
Also, i really enjoyed simple battle.net with chatrooms and games and a friends list. They would be crazy to not style it in they previous models of opening into a chatroom.
Anything beyond that is invasive and is very similar to Steam. They want to be able to track you for "marketing purposes" and sell games online. The "social network" is all monitoring for marketing.
It's a useless feature to the average user but makes them cash when they sell your info.
If they continue in this model what you ca expect is a product that is less enjoyable, stable, and slower than the original.
Hosting the servers for all the data they expect to collect costs way more money than the four active IRC (esque) servers they would have to run for chat.
Seems likely they will implement chat regardless beacuse so many people enjoy it.
edit:
Just to put it into an even broader perspective, it is, like Steam, a model to precipitate (no pun intended) the "cloud" system, invisioned by the "geniuses" of various computer companies. Data, programs, and files are stored and transferred between a mega-server and your "PC" or other wireless devices. I really don't know how this will help anything for the avverage user, but it sure makes monitoring people's activites easier.
I expect "Windows 8" to be the first product to begin implementing the "cloud" system into their operating system.
Also, after researching things of this subject for a long time, i'm not surprised by the naming "coincidence" and the metaphorical relationship between Steam and Cloud. These things have great thought put into them, there is no coincidence.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 26 2010 18:53 ComradeDover wrote:Good read, but I do take issue with this: Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
if nobody on my friends list is online I literally feel like I'm the last person on Battle.net. Does it matter how you -feel- about it? You obviously aren't the last person on battle.net, Blizzard tells you how many people are online and playing every time you log in (At least it does with previous titles). And if nobody on your friends list is online, how does it help to have channels filled with spambots and people who are AFK? Those are people you (Or, at least I) don't care about, and being able to see their presence doesn't help my online gaming experience at all. With regard to chatting/communication, if none of the people on my friends list are online, then it really is like I'm the last person on Battle.net -- The last person that matters to me. What's the problem, really? Nowhere to play the Triviabots now? No way for the Diablo 2 spambots to get your account name to spam you with their low, low prices? Using channels has been a miserable experience for the vast majority of Battle.net users. I don't miss them, nor do I want them back.
I've barely seen any spambots - I have no idea what game you used to play that had so many of them. I used to get about 1 spam message when entering one of the Brood War Kor-1 (2..3..4) channels, but that was it.
And yes, it does matter how I feel - feelings are important, and I'm sure Blizzard thinks so too. Also, let me given an example of why I miss channels:
The other night, it was kind of late and the AMM couldn't find any games, so I thought - "hey, I'll go find a custom game... oh wait, there's no channel to look in...".
So I went to bed (or I dunno, I quit playing anyway).
And no, I'm not gonna play a random custom - that's completely pointless if I get a game vs someone in bronze division, complete waste of both our time.
|
This is some seriously fucked up shit. So I can't even start a custom game with a specific name? I can't invite anyone to a custom game without adding them to my friends list? That's retarded... what was wrong with the simple name/password system in SC1 or the "name is the password" system in WC3?
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
|
On February 25 2010 11:57 djWHEAT wrote:
Hah. My newest reason why Battle.net needs some work.
You can't use the word "came".
"Who did you come here with"
"I *&# with my brother"
English Language 0 - Battle.Net Censoring 1
On February 25 2010 12:13 Kennigit wrote:
You cant use the word Transfer or trans either LOL
You 2 realise there is an option to disable censorship right?
|
On February 26 2010 09:51 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2010 07:37 Savio wrote:I click 1 button and get a great game every time.
That is freaking amazing. That is possible in almost every current generation game. It certainly is not enough to call Bnet 2.0 twenty steps ahead. Blizzard is competing with other current games not Bnet 1.0.
Actually the OP was specifically comparing Bnet 2.0 to Bnet 1.0.
EDIT: apparently he was comparing Bnet 2.0 to War3 Bnet.
|
On February 26 2010 12:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2010 07:25 Savio wrote:
I have to disagree with FA's overall assessment while agreeing with a few of his points.
I say BNET 2.0 is 20 steps forward, 2 steps back.
It is currently the single best thing about SC2 right now. SC1 was absolutely horrible at helping me play against people I would have fun with. It was buggy, getting into games was hard and getting into the right games with people my level was nigh impossible. I also tried ICcup and still could not easily get into games that I would enjoy. This is probably true for >90% of the people who bought the game over the 11 years it has been out.
Now with SC2, every single game I play is SOOO fun. Way more fun than I ever had with SC1 and mostly because every game is against someone close to my level. I win ~50% of my games so I have many opportunities to improve since I am still losing some and yet it isn't a stomp fest.
This single fact has changed the entire game for me.
It is fast, sleek, does its job great.
Bnet 1 was ugly, slow to update, had no match making ability, no good way to measure one's skill.
All that being said, I do agree with most of what FA wants changed. Online replays should be there. Public Chat channels in general are dumb and ugly and just a place for people to talk about penises so I don't miss them. But I could perhaps see them as somewhat useful in organizing stuff although I have never seen it be useful in Bnet 1.0 personally. We should be able to see "overall ratings". That would be nice.
But to say that it is not as good as Bnet 1.0 is the grossest miscalculation I have ever heard. I say Bnet 2.0 even as it is right now (with obvious improvements lacking) is the single best thing about SC2. That's because you are comparing it to SC1 only, ignoring WC3. WC3 has automatch making, chat channels, a good whisper system (but no online replays). Honestly, I'd rather use WC3s battle.net than the CURRENT Bnet 2.0. Is the AMM good? Yes, but WC3 had it, and it had channels etc as well. However, as I said, if they added these two things, yes, Bnet 2.0 would be an improvement.
I can live with that. As long as you are not saying that SC2 Bnet 2.0 is worse than SC1 Bnet. That would just be ridiculous.
Not a Warcraft fan anyway so I assumed we were only talking about Starcraft here.
EDIT: also to let see my perspective..since I never played War3, I literally did go straight from SCBW Bnet to SC2 Bnet 2.0. That is why I think Bnet 2.0 is so freaking amazing.
|
On February 27 2010 00:39 pioneer8 wrote:
Also, i really enjoyed simple battle.net with chatrooms and games and a friends list. They would be crazy to not style it in they previous models of opening into a chatroom.
Anything beyond that is invasive and is very similar to Steam. They want to be able to track you for "marketing purposes" and sell games online. The "social network" is all monitoring for marketing.
It's a useless feature to the average user but makes them cash when they sell your info.
If they continue in this model what you ca expect is a product that is less enjoyable, stable, and slower than the original.
Hosting the servers for all the data they expect to collect costs way more money than the four active IRC (esque) servers they would have to run for chat.
Seems likely they will implement chat regardless beacuse so many people enjoy it.
edit:
Just to put it into an even broader perspective, it is, like Steam, a model to precipitate (no pun intended) the "cloud" system, invisioned by the "geniuses" of various computer companies. Data, programs, and files are stored and transferred between a mega-server and your "PC" or other wireless devices. I really don't know how this will help anything for the avverage user, but it sure makes monitoring people's activites easier.
I expect "Windows 8" to be the first product to begin implementing the "cloud" system into their operating system.
I hear this arguement all the time in Chrome vs Firefox discussions, where people are so afraid google is going to steal their personal information and do something unspeakably horrible with it. What, exactly, is the big deal with monitoring activities? What do you have to hide? What is Blizzard going to do with your tranny porn folder? Replys like yours are ridiculous fear-mongering, and you don't even know what it is we're supposed to be afraid of, exactly.
On February 27 2010 01:03 pioneer8 wrote:
Also, after researching things of this subject for a long time, i'm not surprised by the naming "coincidence" and the metaphorical relationship between Steam and Cloud. These things have great thought put into them, there is no coincidence.
Steam has been around longer than that. It actually gets its name from it's host company, Valve.
On February 27 2010 03:10 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2010 18:53 ComradeDover wrote:Good read, but I do take issue with this: On February 25 2010 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
if nobody on my friends list is online I literally feel like I'm the last person on Battle.net. Does it matter how you -feel- about it? You obviously aren't the last person on battle.net, Blizzard tells you how many people are online and playing every time you log in (At least it does with previous titles). And if nobody on your friends list is online, how does it help to have channels filled with spambots and people who are AFK? Those are people you (Or, at least I) don't care about, and being able to see their presence doesn't help my online gaming experience at all. With regard to chatting/communication, if none of the people on my friends list are online, then it really is like I'm the last person on Battle.net -- The last person that matters to me. What's the problem, really? Nowhere to play the Triviabots now? No way for the Diablo 2 spambots to get your account name to spam you with their low, low prices? Using channels has been a miserable experience for the vast majority of Battle.net users. I don't miss them, nor do I want them back. I've barely seen any spambots - I have no idea what game you used to play that had so many of them. I used to get about 1 spam message when entering one of the Brood War Kor-1 (2..3..4) channels, but that was it. And yes, it does matter how I feel - feelings are important, and I'm sure Blizzard thinks so too. Also, let me given an example of why I miss channels: The other night, it was kind of late and the AMM couldn't find any games, so I thought - "hey, I'll go find a custom game... oh wait, there's no channel to look in...". So I went to bed (or I dunno, I quit playing anyway). And no, I'm not gonna play a random custom - that's completely pointless if I get a game vs someone in bronze division, complete waste of both our time.
I guess it might not be so bad for Brood War, and I can't speak for the Korean channels, but in games newer than StarCraft (Diablo II, WarCraft III) with higher player counts, it's a genuine problem. Consider that even in a 12 year old game, you STILL get spammed for entering the common public channels. You can bet that StarCraft II won't be spared if channels are re-included.
How would channels help find you a custom game, anyway? Would you go to some super-secret club where other TL.neters hang out? If you're one of the lucky few to be a member of these prestigious channels, then channels are probably a boon to you, but the vast majority of Battle.net users aren't so fortunate. These unwashed masses are pretty much left with one option which you seem to consider yourself too good for, playing against randoms.
|
On February 27 2010 09:03 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 00:39 pioneer8 wrote:
Also, i really enjoyed simple battle.net with chatrooms and games and a friends list. They would be crazy to not style it in they previous models of opening into a chatroom.
Anything beyond that is invasive and is very similar to Steam. They want to be able to track you for "marketing purposes" and sell games online. The "social network" is all monitoring for marketing.
It's a useless feature to the average user but makes them cash when they sell your info.
If they continue in this model what you ca expect is a product that is less enjoyable, stable, and slower than the original.
Hosting the servers for all the data they expect to collect costs way more money than the four active IRC (esque) servers they would have to run for chat.
Seems likely they will implement chat regardless beacuse so many people enjoy it.
edit:
Just to put it into an even broader perspective, it is, like Steam, a model to precipitate (no pun intended) the "cloud" system, invisioned by the "geniuses" of various computer companies. Data, programs, and files are stored and transferred between a mega-server and your "PC" or other wireless devices. I really don't know how this will help anything for the avverage user, but it sure makes monitoring people's activites easier.
I expect "Windows 8" to be the first product to begin implementing the "cloud" system into their operating system. I hear this arguement all the time in Chrome vs Firefox discussions, where people are so afraid google is going to steal their personal information and do something unspeakably horrible with it. What, exactly, is the big deal with monitoring activities? What do you have to hide? What is Blizzard going to do with your tranny porn folder? Replys like yours are ridiculous fear-mongering, and you don't even know what it is we're supposed to be afraid of, exactly
Google -already- monitors and archives your searches and habits to adjust their Google ads to each user. "Do something unspeakably horrible with it?" I think i made it clear that their intent is to sell or use this information for profitable marketing purposes. Your archived search habits and information are already being sold to 3rd parties as we speak.
I have nothing to hide, but i do not want my personal data and habits being archived and sold for whatever reason, especially when it makes the product i want to buy less enjoyable.
On February 27 2010 09:03 ComradeDover wrote:. Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 01:03 pioneer8 wrote:
Also, after researching things of this subject for a long time, i'm not surprised by the naming "coincidence" and the metaphorical relationship between Steam and Cloud. These things have great thought put into them, there is no coincidence. Steam has been around longer than that. It actually gets its name from it's host company, Valve.
Given the similarities to the cloud system there is no doubt that Steam is a reference to their cloud. It is also a reference to their company's name.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I guess it might not be so bad for Brood War, and I can't speak for the Korean channels, but in games newer than StarCraft (Diablo II, WarCraft III) with higher player counts, it's a genuine problem. Consider that even in a 12 year old game, you STILL get spammed for entering the common public channels. You can bet that StarCraft II won't be spared if channels are re-included.
Well, with the way the new battle.net works, wouldn't blizzard have a far easier time stopping spambots than in the past?
How would channels help find you a custom game, anyway? Would you go to some super-secret club where other TL.neters hang out? If you're one of the lucky few to be a member of these prestigious channels, then channels are probably a boon to you, but the vast majority of Battle.net users aren't so fortunate. These unwashed masses are pretty much left with one option which you seem to consider yourself too good for, playing against randoms.
There have been many gaming channels throughout time:
clan ~nohunter (or something like that, this is too old school for me to be honest)
op ToT)
clan -nc
brood war kor-namomo (1v1 cannel)
brood war kor-nexus (team game channel)
On US West, "the" gaming channel moved around, but there was always one.
You could also have channels based on ladder rank, so it would be easier to find a game. Plus, if all I want to do is play some 2v2, I don't need to find a great ally - just a basic Brood War Swe-1 type channel would be just fine for me ("hey, anyone want to 2v2?").
On February 27 2010 05:49 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2010 12:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On February 26 2010 07:25 Savio wrote:
I have to disagree with FA's overall assessment while agreeing with a few of his points.
I say BNET 2.0 is 20 steps forward, 2 steps back.
It is currently the single best thing about SC2 right now. SC1 was absolutely horrible at helping me play against people I would have fun with. It was buggy, getting into games was hard and getting into the right games with people my level was nigh impossible. I also tried ICcup and still could not easily get into games that I would enjoy. This is probably true for >90% of the people who bought the game over the 11 years it has been out.
Now with SC2, every single game I play is SOOO fun. Way more fun than I ever had with SC1 and mostly because every game is against someone close to my level. I win ~50% of my games so I have many opportunities to improve since I am still losing some and yet it isn't a stomp fest.
This single fact has changed the entire game for me.
It is fast, sleek, does its job great.
Bnet 1 was ugly, slow to update, had no match making ability, no good way to measure one's skill.
All that being said, I do agree with most of what FA wants changed. Online replays should be there. Public Chat channels in general are dumb and ugly and just a place for people to talk about penises so I don't miss them. But I could perhaps see them as somewhat useful in organizing stuff although I have never seen it be useful in Bnet 1.0 personally. We should be able to see "overall ratings". That would be nice.
But to say that it is not as good as Bnet 1.0 is the grossest miscalculation I have ever heard. I say Bnet 2.0 even as it is right now (with obvious improvements lacking) is the single best thing about SC2. That's because you are comparing it to SC1 only, ignoring WC3. WC3 has automatch making, chat channels, a good whisper system (but no online replays). Honestly, I'd rather use WC3s battle.net than the CURRENT Bnet 2.0. Is the AMM good? Yes, but WC3 had it, and it had channels etc as well. However, as I said, if they added these two things, yes, Bnet 2.0 would be an improvement. I can live with that. As long as you are not saying that SC2 Bnet 2.0 is worse than SC1 Bnet. That would just be ridiculous. Not a Warcraft fan anyway so I assumed we were only talking about Starcraft here. EDIT: also to let see my perspective..since I never played War3, I literally did go straight from SCBW Bnet to SC2 Bnet 2.0. That is why I think Bnet 2.0 is so freaking amazing.
I think this is the big difference between us then - I am used to how wonderful auto-matchmaking is, having used it in WC3 and Dawn of War 2 beta (played a bunch of 2v2 WC3 last year, and the DoW2 beta).
The AMM is nice, but to me it's just as basic a feature as chat channels or online replays, which is why I'm disappointed that the latter two arent in the game yet.
|
On February 27 2010 09:47 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Well, with the way the new battle.net works, wouldn't blizzard have a far easier time stopping spambots than in the past?
Probably not.
On February 27 2010 09:47 FrozenArbiter wrote:
There have been many gaming channels throughout time:
clan ~nohunter (or something like that, this is too old school for me to be honest)
op ToT)
clan -nc
brood war kor-namomo (1v1 cannel)
brood war kor-nexus (team game channel)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I know such channels exist, but I don't know what they are currently, and most people don't know they exist at all. The channels being there doesn't help all the people who don't know about them, and if everyone knew about them, they would just become another USA-1 type channel. These channels function by being somewhat exclusive, that's what sheilds them from the rest of Battle.net
On February 27 2010 09:47 FrozenArbiter wrote:
You could also have channels based on ladder rank, so it would be easier to find a game. Plus, if all I want to do is play some 2v2, I don't need to find a great ally - just a basic Brood War Swe-1 type channel would be just fine for me ("hey, anyone want to 2v2?").
I don't know how it is in Swe-1, but in USA-1, you won't get a response, and you'll quickly be drowned out by the chorus of spambots and triviabots, and if you choose to repeat yourself over and over until you do get a response, you'll just be written off as another bot yourself. If you have had success with channels in the past, then great! But make no mistake, your experience is definitely not typical.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I haven't played in Swe-1 for a long time, but back in the day it was active (2002-2003). Blizzard has made some weird change where you join a random swe-X channel tho, so the few players that are left are spread out across different channels when they join now, heh.
Anyway, I would rather have these private channels (really, I think almost everyone who read TL knew about op ToT), that's kinda public), than no channels at all.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
There's a darkened social option in the Beta, thus there WILL be channels, its just not activated yet.
Stop panicing folks. =)
|
On February 27 2010 16:51 iNfeRnaL wrote:
There's a darkened social option in the Beta, thus there WILL be channels, its just not activated yet.
Stop panicing folks. =)
ya ur right pat, CHANNELS are so important in starcraft. Like chatcraft is a part of the game.
wow it took me a while to read thru this , really good read thanks
|
On February 27 2010 10:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Anyway, I would rather have these private channels (really, I think almost everyone who read TL knew about op ToT), that's kinda public), than no channels at all.
That's my point, though. Channels benefit the elite few who know about and utilize the private channels, and they're a detriment to everyone else. It's all well and good if "almost everyone" who reads TL knows about op ToT, but that's "almost everyone" of 1358 active members (Admittedly, I don't know what TL.net's definition of "active" is), compared to the 11,000,000 on b.net in total. In fact, that's how they function, by keeping the rest of the 10,998,642 out and away.
I guess you haven't walked the slums of bnet, so I'll be sure to take screenshots and post them with my next reply.
|
Good read. And really glad they will make chatrooms in sc2. Well heres to improvements in sc2 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 27 2010 21:58 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 10:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Anyway, I would rather have these private channels (really, I think almost everyone who read TL knew about op ToT), that's kinda public), than no channels at all. That's my point, though. Channels benefit the elite few who know about and utilize the private channels, and they're a detriment to everyone else. It's all well and good if "almost everyone" who reads TL knows about op ToT, but that's "almost everyone" of 1358 active members (Admittedly, I don't know what TL.net's definition of "active" is), compared to the 11,000,000 on b.net in total. In fact, that's how they function, by keeping the rest of the 10,998,642 out and away. I guess you haven't walked the slums of bnet, so I'll be sure to take screenshots and post them with my next reply.
Active means logged in...  I'm not sure how many members we total, but it's probably like 50 times that number or something lol (hard to say since there will be duplicate accounts - I don't have access to full statistics).
Also, there are literally thousands of private channels, and they work just fine for simply chatting with friends.
Finally, why do you talk about keeping people out? If they don't know about the channels, and only have access to some less than perfect ones... Why is that worse than not having any channels exactly? Hell, with no channels you don't even give them the chance to form private channels of their own.
|
Great read thanks. I fully agree on the /w omission, it is really annoying
|
imo very unproffesional post.. just stomping on things that are obvious
it's nice to be very discerningly.. but this goes far beyond.
Blizzard said that this is an EXTREMLY early version of Bnet 2.0, with no features activated. They only want this beta for Server testing and balance..
I wouldn't talk in a beta about technical things, better make a review about the game experience
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 02 2010 09:15 Daxten wrote:
imo very unproffesional post.. just stomping on things that are obvious
it's nice to be very discerningly.. but this goes far beyond.
Blizzard said that this is an EXTREMLY early version of Bnet 2.0, with no features activated. They only want this beta for Server testing and balance..
I wouldn't talk in a beta about technical things, better make a review about the game experience
So, your suggestion is to not complain about anything that bothers you until the full game is out? Isn't it better to complain now, and maybe Blizzard will notice something they didn't think was a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
