|
On October 22 2011 12:31 Tropical Bob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 11:55 Apollo_Shards wrote:On October 22 2011 11:49 Tropical Bob wrote:
Fucking stupid. Thank you for such insight. Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 11:55 MonkSEA wrote:
I don't mind not having lan. It's not 'fucking stupid.'
It's nice that they're thinking of doing a lan-esque thing for the leagues, but for general audience LAN is not needed at all. Even if it's not opened for the general consumer (But it should be), they should at the very least implement it for tournaments. And seriously, for them to sit there and say 'we know there are huge issues, but we have no plans to do anything about it, no matter how simple, easy, and probably incredibly cheap it would be' is just incredibly insulting to both the community and e-sports. What we're seeing here is Blizzard doing basically nothing in their power to support e-sports at all. And in fact, due to their strict policy on broadcasting rights (Though that's more the fault of stupid US copyright laws) and the whole ad revenue thing, it's almost like they're trying to stifle e-sports on purpose. So yeah, it's fucking stupid.
I don't see the urgency for them to add lan, even for tournament play. If it's not available anywhere else other than tournies, then pros will be practicing in different conditions which makes their overall gameplay suboptimal. No one wants that. No one. If they can't practice in latency-free conditions, I don't want them to suddenly switch for a few days and see their skill drop from practice. And no, you can't just get used to having no lag when all you've practiced on is inherent bnet latency. If they one day public lan, then I will welcome lan for tournies with open arms.
|
what about name changes? Should have asked that 
|
On October 22 2011 11:58 gulati wrote:
They are aware of the issues, and notice them when they occur. That's like me saying I am aware of a person being shot in public, and I can see it happening. I am still going to prison if I don't call for help, because I can be seen as an accessory.
It's more like seeing someone drowning and having a float in your hand but refusing to throw it to him.
|
On October 22 2011 12:37 beefhamburger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:31 Tropical Bob wrote:On October 22 2011 11:55 Apollo_Shards wrote:On October 22 2011 11:49 Tropical Bob wrote:
Fucking stupid. Thank you for such insight. On October 22 2011 11:55 MonkSEA wrote:
I don't mind not having lan. It's not 'fucking stupid.'
It's nice that they're thinking of doing a lan-esque thing for the leagues, but for general audience LAN is not needed at all. Even if it's not opened for the general consumer (But it should be), they should at the very least implement it for tournaments. And seriously, for them to sit there and say 'we know there are huge issues, but we have no plans to do anything about it, no matter how simple, easy, and probably incredibly cheap it would be' is just incredibly insulting to both the community and e-sports. What we're seeing here is Blizzard doing basically nothing in their power to support e-sports at all. And in fact, due to their strict policy on broadcasting rights (Though that's more the fault of stupid US copyright laws) and the whole ad revenue thing, it's almost like they're trying to stifle e-sports on purpose. So yeah, it's fucking stupid. I don't see the urgency for them to add lan, even for tournament play. If it's not available anywhere else other than tournies, then pros will be practicing in different conditions which makes their overall gameplay suboptimal. No one wants that. No one. If they can't practice in latency-free conditions, I don't want them to suddenly switch for few days and see their skill drop. And no, you can't just get used to having no lag when all you've practiced on is inherent bnet latency.
Having no brood war knowledge at all, I'm curious what the pro's from SC1 thought of all this. Did they have a hard time? I can certainly tell when I'm lagging badly and it negatively effects my play, but never am I like, "damn...game is just to smooth."
|
Pretty much all the same info again but atleast it's something.
I'm glad clan support is coming.
Really sad to hear they aren't planning on introducing lan since it's a reason many of my friends wont buy the game=(
|
On October 22 2011 12:36 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:23 Plansix wrote:On October 22 2011 12:18 Sinensis wrote:On October 22 2011 12:18 Plansix wrote:On October 22 2011 12:16 Sinensis wrote:
Marketplace and microtransactions higher up on "the list" than stupid basic stuff like clans, group replay, and being able to watch pro games on their client? Are they short on cash or something? Why not just release another special edition mount if that's the case?
I sort of wish Valve would make an SC clone. And force you to install a store on your computer to play their game? What do you think Blizzard marketplace is? The exact same thing. I love Steam to death and think it is awesome. I am just pointing out that Valve does a lot of the stuff it does for free because they install a store on your PC and then make money off you buying stuff. Blizzard is looking for some of that. Money coming in after release means better support for a given game. Activision Blizzard revenue: $4.768 billion per year (US dollars per year) (trailing 12-month value as of June 30, 2011) Valve's isn't half of that.
Ok, so they would like to continue making money. There is nothing wrong with that. We just have to wait for the other features that do not provide them with revenue.
|
Oh wow same answers as always. "We want to add that, it's on the list but we can't promise a date." Super. Too bad they shat on the community by cock blocking LAN apparently permanently. What the hell do we have to do to get that?
|
I'm very skeptical of "some sort of offline server capability for the MLGs, GSLs etc of the world". Unless they add some form of fake latency it's going to be very different from a player's practice environment. Just like controlling units in single player mode vs AI feels very different from controlling units in multiplayer mode vs AI.
The response time of units in single player is so much better and LAN latency would make micro battles far more intense and interesting.
|
On October 22 2011 12:36 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:23 Plansix wrote:On October 22 2011 12:18 Sinensis wrote:On October 22 2011 12:18 Plansix wrote:On October 22 2011 12:16 Sinensis wrote:
Marketplace and microtransactions higher up on "the list" than stupid basic stuff like clans, group replay, and being able to watch pro games on their client? Are they short on cash or something? Why not just release another special edition mount if that's the case?
I sort of wish Valve would make an SC clone. And force you to install a store on your computer to play their game? What do you think Blizzard marketplace is? The exact same thing. I love Steam to death and think it is awesome. I am just pointing out that Valve does a lot of the stuff it does for free because they install a store on your PC and then make money off you buying stuff. Blizzard is looking for some of that. Money coming in after release means better support for a given game. Activision Blizzard revenue: $4.768 billion per year (US dollars per year) (trailing 12-month value as of June 30, 2011) Valve's isn't half of that.
Actually Valve doesn't release their sales numbers from steam, etc. It's up to them if they want to release it.
|
the thing about LAN is like, how fucking hard could it possibly be to implement it
|
You guys don't understand. They can't give tournaments LAN because then they lose control, which is the reason there's no LAN in the first place. Without bnet0.2 as a leash around the neck of every tournament there's nothing stopping an organization like kespa from taking complete control of SC2 as an esport and cutting off Blizzard from their dirty cash.
|
On October 22 2011 12:42 Achaia wrote:
Oh wow same answers as always. "We want to add that, it's on the list but we can't promise a date." Super. Too bad they shat on the community by cock blocking LAN apparently permanently. What the hell do we have to do to get that?
You never getting it. Blizzard is never adding it, because they don't want to. They do not want the game to be pirated more than it already is and do not feel the need to assist with the process.
|
you guys really need to understand that lan = private pirate servers ofcourse blizzard will try to avoid it
to be completely honest before buying the game i was looking or it has private servers because if it has i would never pay for the game wich can be free
|
On October 22 2011 12:46 proxima_ wrote:
the thing about LAN is like, how fucking hard could it possibly be to implement it
Easy, but Blizzard is never going to add it. It is a feature that will only lose them money and control over their game. The only reason to add it is because "the community wants it". The problem is that the share holders don't want it.
|
They already have LAN for internal testing anyway, just need the decision to patch it.
+ Show Spoiler +
You can see from the picture above that "Local Player" name is hovered.
|
How come a recconect feature is not on "the list" seriously guys ?? no lan and no recconect???
|
Yes LAN will increase piracy but piracy is also one of the reasons why SC:BW became so popular and so profitable over the last 11 years. In certain cases piracy can help a brand more than damage it, with starcraft this is the case. it sounds insane and against everything that a company believes in but its true...
Blizzard can certainly take a hit in the short run to profit off of the community and game success in the long run, they'd just rather keep their investors and shareholders happy by showing large sales numbers while hindering the capabilities and needs of this game by refusing to add features that would only improve the game.
Theres absolutely no reason why a competitive RTS should have any form of lag or any reason for it's play to be hindered. Almost every major popular competitve game has a LAN function for good reason. Money should never play a factor in improving a game at its core. They're reporting multi-billion dollar earnings but are afraid of losing a couple of million in the immediate short term instead of banking on the fact that a LAN feature would grow the competitive scene ten-fold and earn them so much more years down the road. Seriously, fuck blizzard for flat out refusing to add a feature that would impact the games growth so much more than it is now -_-
|
Glad to see they are working on their little marketplace thing instead of actually implementing the features the community wants. I had a lot of hopes for this expansion but it seems they haven't learned anything.
|
On October 22 2011 11:45 Kennigit wrote:
LAN
No Lan. Chris said that he doesn't foresee LAN during the SC2 life cycle (from WoL -> end of life). With regards to esports they are very aware of the issues and see them when they happen (although that doesn't really help the problem ;o). He also said they are more positive about the idea of having some sort of offline server capability for the MLGs, GSLs etc of the world....but they have no current plans to implement one. My question was basically, at what point do the interests of the esports industry start to outweigh the reasoning they've given us in the past for no offline play ("the list", IP protection, business etc).
tl;dr: it could happen next year, it could happen in 3 years, but it wont be related to an expansion release.
Cool, except you can play via LAN using a third party program that breaks the TOS, etc...
Thaaat's coooollll Blizzard.
EDIT: Also I sincerely doubt this is Activision's terrible claws sinking into Blizzard, since Activison recently announced that the PC port of MW3 will have LAN capability.
|
Another disappointing response from bliz this blizcon ;( . I have just been consistently unhappy with their comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t1gDB.png)
