EPTOn June 30 2009 00:59 Bleach wrote:
All in all, some will lose less and some more, but not one player will benefit from this.
All in all, some will lose less and some more, but not one player will benefit from this.
This
[SC2] A Thorough Examination - Page 12
| Forum Index > News |
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
This | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On June 30 2009 01:53 wtfhi2u wrote: Thing is it's a battle they cannot win. End users want freedom to use the software they buy however they wish. If the developers don't provide it, the pirates will. The more artificial restrictions you put into place (such as needing an internet connection to play offline), the bigger the demand for piracy. Again, Bioshock. We can be sure that Blizzard understands that their game will be pirated and that people will succeed at creating third-party servers for it. We can also be sure that Blizzard understands their legal capacity to sue such servers in order to force them to cease & desist, as they have done in the past and as courts have decided is correct. We can be almost sure that the EULA will tighten the reins on all non-Battle.net play, as well. If you don't like these things, you are free to either not play multiplayer/purchase the game or you are free to act illegally and risk whatever consequences there might be. That's the line Blizzard has drawn. Tangentially, the axiom that more artificial restrictions = more piracy does not necessarily apply to Blizzard, or at least it doesn't seem to apply to the same degree that it applies to other companies. Battle.net is like a huge magnet for legal copies of the game because it provides an ease of use and size of player pool unlike any other multiplayer venue. This assumption is borne out by the fact that Battle.net 1.x, in all its iterations (D2, BW, WC3), still has large numbers of players connected with legal CD keys on a daily basis after 7-11 years. On June 30 2009 01:53 Last Romantic wrote: Pretty sure that tree is wrong. IMO twilight council -> Dark Shrine/Templar Archives; Stargate -> Fleet Beacon. Great, thanks. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 02:02 wtfhi2u wrote: And NEITHER WOULD LAN. Jesus F. Christ it's that hard to grasp or what? Nice strawman, still, not related to the point that requiring the Internet helps limit piracy. | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
Being able to select an unlimited number of units, though, will help with getting your newly macrod units out of your base, or all those overlords floating over your rally point out of the way instead of double clicking one and sending them away then trying to pick out the other individually before being able to start grouping your real army under them. I know Terran wont stick with Marine and Marauder once the Koreans get a hold of the game and start raping the shit out of the bioball. It'll should be similar to how it is now, except Terran will have to add Ghosts to either snipe or emp the Protoss army so storm doesn't rape face. I, for one, would like to see banelings completely removed and lurks moved back down :|. Z and P are my homeboy races and if PvZ, the funnest matchup in the game, isn't as fun as it is now, ill be one very very sad panda. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On June 30 2009 02:11 wtfhi2u wrote: And so this is going to change with SC2 how? Even with a LAN option, those people interested in getting the full Bnet experience will pay for the game. Those who aren't will get a pirated version anyway. Big difference. This trend of selling a game you can only play on a designated playground is getting really old really quick. I'm not sure if you understood, so I'll rewrite it this way: Battle.net makes Blizzard's games worth purchasing legally and playing legally for a greater percentage of people than other companies' online services do for those companies' games. I was principally agreeing with you that adding more restrictions causes more piracy, but my argument is that that equation doesn't affect Blizzard as much because Battle.net is so good. My supporting evidence is that Battle.net is still a thriving community with tons of legal players for D2, BW, and WC3 even after between 7-11 years since the release of each of those games. Edit: Also, if you can only play a game on a designated playground and the playground is shitty, yeah, that sucks. But if Blizzard makes a great playground with Bnet 2 (which we have every reason to believe they will) they won't have a big problem to deal with. | ||
|
ryuu_
United States1266 Posts
On June 30 2009 01:54 Mykill wrote: man i hope terran isnt imba  | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On June 30 2009 02:19 wtfhi2u wrote: And the only real, "sound" rationale for all this, is to keep control over all esports events (I'm sure Blizzard themselves can manage it better than the current scene RIGHT?). GJ Blizzard, and if you have to screw the end user for it, it's all worth it amirite? Fucking scrooges, x3. They don't want to "manage" the esports scene. They just want a share of the money. | ||
|
zazen
Brazil695 Posts
- No lan is ok as long as they tell us what "new BNET features" are replacing LAN. They said nothing about it. Why? Makes me feel that they actually have nothing, or are still struggling to come up with a good enough excuse to remove LAN play. - Some of the balance statements scared the shit out of me. The whole Mothership entry + Show Spoiler + Mothership: It moves very, very slowly. I fail to see its usefulness in most games, as the only way to get it to the battlefield is to make a proxy pylon and warp to it. Browder is OK with it being a marginalized unit though - he notes that SC1 had its own share of "fuck you" units in the scout and queen. - I was totally expecting the excuse for having a NDA to be a very silly one, but seriously, the whole problem was simply "our servers not ready"? This pissed me off. Why have a NDA for this? And again: Why they have to keep absolute secret about BNET and single player yet they want us to buy their game? Absolutely disappointed and underwhelmed by Blizzard's handling of the Beta delays and PR. They shouldn't be acting as the big-shot company with no interest all in being transparent with their fans about what's going on. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5458 Posts
However, LAN is right out due to Bnet 2.0 features that they could not discuss. I'm not saying that LAN is "in", but a lot of you probably should wait until you have full info before you spout your sensationalist conclusions! My question is ... How does the FPView work exactly? Does it show the mouse pointer moving around? Or select + drag boxes? Is it 100% identical to watching the person's screen as they played it live? edit: Also, if you watch the new HQ vod, Hellions looks kinda cool (vs. the Banelings in particular); at the very least, they are still quick and move like Vultures. They just need a graphical overhaul and possibly some user activated ability. And the Broodlords kicked the shit out of Void Rays in that video really quickly, so I think those will be good at least for Zerg anti-air. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Redstorm[MFx]
Norway258 Posts
| ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On June 30 2009 01:57 MasterReY wrote: Hey LR. If you have any information about this, could you explain how they can rewind replays? How does the code behind this works and stuff? It was always said that it is impossible to rewind replays, so now im interested how they found a solution. It is indeed impossible to have a true rewind. Replays are basically a recreation of every in-game action, not a movie. Ergo, resurrections et al. cannot be done. To solve this, Blizzard implemented a checkpoint system that takes in-game snapshots of the situation periodically. These can be jumped to forward and back via buttons and/or replay bar. @ FPView, it's not true fpview in that you do not see the mouse move. It follows screen and shows actions [drags, clicks, etcaetera] but the cursor itself is stationary. @ B.net features I am afraid that they'll institute a pay programme for extra features. I feel this suspicion is valid, but hope that it is not. | ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil523 Posts
-Hydra-ling is really so weak that the infestor does not help? -Ultras-Lurkers-Broodlords were not used? -How about vikings? Wouldnt they be the T air-air counter you said Banshee not have? -You said gas is harder to get than in SC1, why if we have 2 gas on base now ? Because the costs of a new assim and more 3 probes? -How warp gates upgrade work? You need only to pay 50/50 cost on CyCore and all your gates become Warp Gates or you need to pay something more on each gate? | ||
|
anotak
United States1537 Posts
looks like my transition from starcraft to fighting games is cemented with this move | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On June 30 2009 02:33 wtfhi2u wrote: Awesome reason to remove options like LAN when your war chests are full of WOW subscriptions. Also, unthankful much? You have a scene that keeps your game alive for 11yrs, turns it into a would be national sport, and all you have to say is HEY WHERES MY CUT, LETS REMOVE FEATURES SO YOU HAVE TO START PAYING TO ORGANIZE TOURNAMENTS LOLOL. Nobody here thinks SC's popularity and its user-friendliness are in the least bit related? Basically Blizzard is ok with SC2's success being less fantastic if that can make them more money. How exciting for the players. When the game has been out for a year or more and everything is fine, I'm going to think of your melodramatic, overwrought concern and laugh heartily. | ||
|
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
Yes, but only in already won/lost games. It's hard to judge their viability in competitive games. [Basically almost all the games I played were effectively 'over' in under 10 minutes, so hive-tech units had no actual impact on the result] Vikings are indeed good against air. My point about the Banshee is that they rock everything on the ground. It's harder because you get 5 a trip. So one base does get you 10 a trip but you have to build two assims and have six workers harvesting, which takes some infrastructure buildup and is only marginally more than the 8 a trip you got in the original. Minerals are also 5 a trip but it seems faster since you can mine them all right off the bat. Warp gate ability is 50/50 at cycore. Then you can individually upgrade each gateway [it shuts down the building for like 10 seconds but it's free]. | ||
| ||
