EPTSC2 is great. B.net 2.0 is meh. I'm going to buy SC2... and play it. Hell I would even pay a monthly fee for a period of time. B.net isn't worth a monthly fee though.
The state of Battle.net 2.0 - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Spidermonkey
United States251 Posts
SC2 is great. B.net 2.0 is meh. I'm going to buy SC2... and play it. Hell I would even pay a monthly fee for a period of time. B.net isn't worth a monthly fee though. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
That's gotta mean that they're constantly working on it. Which is obviously extremely discouraging.. My gripe (apart from the stuff FA said) is the incredibly inefficient layout. I run @ 2560x1600 resolution, I can fit literally 20+ msn chat windows and can comfortably read/chat on all of them at the same time. Yet I can fit 3? 4? battle.net chat screens? How stupid is that I'm not even going to rant about how insanely unintuitive navigating the profile/achievements/ladder rankings/etc is. It's just mindblowingly horrid. The replay "browser" (if you can call it that =| ) is completely fucking useless. Now that I find out that the guy who designed XBOX live is behind BNET 2.0 development (also wtf @ bringing all the outside development "talent", too many original devs left I guess?) it's all starting to make sense. The completely unimaginative, bland, "nothing special" flavor that PS3 and XBOX have to their "community interfaces" is most definitely present here. | ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
| ||
|
TricKStaR
4 Posts
Those that played Diablo 2 and WC3 know a little about this. So many cool additions were planned for Diablo 2 that I can not even remember them all, and every single major one of those never got added into the game. Does anyone remember what happened with WC3 and watching online replays? I do. Despite SC and BW already having online replay watching WC3 was launched without the ability to watch replays online. This was a major concern to the WC3 community and there was tons of people posting complaints about it. The response from blizzard was that it was just something simple that they didn't have ready at launch but they would add it to the game in the future. The future responses from Blizzard became less and less optimistic about adding it in and finally months or was it years later (I don't remember was along time ago) they finally came out and said "We won't add it to the game sorry". WC3 never got online replays and I think there is a very good chance Blizzard will continue its history of having good intention to eventually add things to their games and never come through with it in the end. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
And maybe its this patch or the fact that an actual release seems to be looming or whatever... but I went from calm and confident to pissed off and skeptical in a very short span of time. As battlenet stands right now, it is a strong possibility that I won't even buy the game... not because I wouldn't have fun actually playing, because I know I would, but because I will not support blizzard in any way going forward if they try to force this BS down our throats. | ||
|
nudicle
5 Posts
It appears that Blizzard has but the junior varsity team on SC2 and bnet2. Lame. | ||
|
Squalish
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
devolore
United States70 Posts
Add chatrooms, fix divisions, re-add the ability to friend someone without playing a game with them first (who came up with that idea?). Easy ways to make Battle.net 2.0 a success. | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
There is no standpoint you can stand from to justify things like the lack of chat rooms, unique id's, online replays, a friends system that doesn't require you to join games just to add people, a clean and intuitive interface, and LOCAL MAP HOSTING. One of the most brain damaging decisions in all of battle.net 2.0 is the removal of local hosting. You know, host BGH and everyone joins and downloads it and you have a good ol' time. You absolutely MUST publish a map in order to host it, and the limits on hosting maps are so ridiculously absurd that it's unbelievable. Maybe you don't know about some of those limits? Here's one for you, quoted straight from the b.net forums - Oh. Wow. Did not know this. So, I guess I really truly cannot wait for the first private server to show up... I always assumed they'd just add some kind of protection to the premium maps, like locking them to a specific account once you pay. On May 23 2010 06:28 Reborn8u wrote: I'm actually at a lan right now, we had a ton of delays because there is some kind of ip limit on Bnet so everyone (over 100 people) had to proxy to play. Then battlenet went down in the round of 16. Everyone had to replay games. It's pretty retarded. No chat rooms, No lan, everyone is having lag issues ON LAN! Giving away your email or facebook info is retarded. Here's a picture from the Fl lan. We're getting the games done now but it's been pretty rediculous! ![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/4q6gch.jpg) Gonna make sure blizz sees this -_- On May 23 2010 07:33 HalfAmazing wrote: Facebook integration is a joke -- we're all agreed. What offends me the most though, is that it's so obnoxiously intrusive. It's big, it's in your face and there's no 'not noticing' it. It's a giant ad that you can't help but be annoyed by. What I've noticed is that Americans in general are far more tolerant of this sort of thing than Europeans, because they've built up a higher tolerance for this level of monetization. Take the UFC for example, there's ads flashing on screen DURING the fights, there's the Harley Davidson "prep point", there's a stream of ads in between fights, there's this PPV's flavor of the week Goldberg shilling ("this PPV is being brought to you by shit-bag, another shitty piece of shit...bag), etc, etc. People just paid $50 for the PPV only to be subjected to this level of commercialization? How about "this PPV is being brought to you, by you and your $50! Maybe I'm going off on a tangent, but if I fucking pay for something, it's not being brought to me by anything other than my fucking wallet. Facebook is just the first step. Yes, I want to choke him everytime he fires off one of their commercial-jingles. Or, everytime he starts talking about a future UFC event in the middle of an exciting fight: just shut. the. fuck. up. Just think about what you thought of B.net 2.0 when you first got the beta rather than right now because of patch 13. What I thought of Bnet 2.0 when beta was new Oh hey, nothing has changed since then to make it better T_T | ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
| ||
|
WizEye
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfpox
Canada164 Posts
Are there chat rooms? No. Is there any logical reason to assume that they've shown everything they will end up doing in the final product even though they've said that they'll take down the Beta and bring it back later on with more features? Not at all. | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
On May 23 2010 13:44 Design wrote: As FA said earlier, apparently the Project Director of Battle.NET is Greg Canessa who previously worked on xbox live. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4124/the_man_behind_battlenet_greg_.php This is an official Blizzard video they released in Feb. Seems like he has a major role in the decision making. Wow, that dude is horrible, talking about achievements and rewards and useless shit like that all the time when asked about the core features of B.Net.  | ||
|
ImSkeptical
Australia51 Posts
Essentially Blizzard needs to print out the third post in this thread by Jinro, put checkboxes next to each point, and start working down the list to address them for release. | ||
|
WizEye
United States9 Posts
On May 23 2010 17:32 Wolfpox wrote: Is there clan support? No. Are there chat rooms? No. Is there any logical reason to assume that they've shown everything they will end up doing in the final product even though they've said that they'll take down the Beta and bring it back later on with more features? Not at all. They specifically said chat rooms will not be there on release. I'm assuming clan support won't be in either given how late it is to test a feature of that impact. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
However, through the various patches, Blizzard broke things that shouldn't even be breakable if this was a solid program. They switch to UDP this late in the beta. They make it so that larvae don't die when you cancel an egg and later claim that it was a bug. Two possiblities: It was intentional and they are too proud to admit that they don't really understand the inner workings of Zerg, or it really was a bug. In this case the scripting must be a horrible, awful mess. Both are very, very bad. They do all this nonsense with names and identifiers and facebook in the latest patch. Someone complains that you can't add friends via nickname anymore and the response is that sometimes programmers intentionally take out functionality to test other functionality. Well sure sometimes they do. However, with the new naming conventions, it simply is impossible to add people via nickname. It's not unique, so you could add 100 people at once, or a random guy out of those 100. The version history of SC2Beta works as follows: All old patch data is copied over into the new patch folder, and the old patch data is kept as is. Result: Exponential growth of HDD usage. The problems with logging into other people's accouns and random resets of accounts seem to have been fixed now. Finally. However this whole issue made me wonder what kind of database Blizzard is using. Are the people managing their databases just bad, or have they written their own buggy database system instead of using a thoroughly tested and working existing database system? Hotkeys in SC2 are split up into 3 files in one Archive. At least one of these files overwrites the settings of another file, supposedly because they have different settings for Singleplayer and Multiplayer (yes don't be surprised if your hotkeys in the campaign are different from your hotkeys in the multiplayer part of the game). There has to be at least one other file that sets overwrites some UI hotkeys which is not easily accessible (I haven't found it yet). For example if you wanted a control group on the S key, you would toggle sound instead of assigning that control group, even if you remapped the toggle sound hotkey. This is quite the mess. Now, the following might be a bit subjective, but I feel that Blizzard is failing hard at game design. Roaches at 2 supply are simply not swarmy. Ultralisks have become High DPS low HP units instead of tanks. Zerglings are the new tanks. Infested Terrans have been removed from the Infestor... to be readded to the Overseer?!? This spell isn't going to get any better by moving it from one unit to another. | ||
| ||
